/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230309.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 9, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 50 Headlines AARGON AGENCY: Richter Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ACUSHNET COMPANY: Tanner Files Suit in C.D. California ALDO US: Baptiste Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: To Compensate Pass Holders for COVID Shutdowns ALTRIA GROUP: $15M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Shareholder Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Sizemore-Easter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AMERICAN CAR: Former Employees File WARN Class Action ANOTECH ENERGY: Holden Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages APEX FURNITURE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Smith's 1st Amended Complaint BAJCO 100: Hawn Can Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees BANK OF AMERICA: Ngo Sues Over Unlawful Withholding of Cash Rewards BINDLE BOTTLE: Mikalacki Sues Over High Levels of Lead BINDLE BOTTLE: Suit Alleges Exposed Lead Levels of Water Bottles BLOCKFI INC: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Class Action Suit BLUETRITON BRANDS: Payne Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments BREAD FINANCIAL: Reed Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt CALIFORNIA CANDLE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Bid to Approve Heitzman's $225K FLSA Deal Denied CANADA: Court Hearing in Indian Day School Abuse Suit Started CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Mudahy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations CIG LOGISTICS: Mobley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CLEVELAND BROTHERS: MacMichael Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania DAPPER LABS: Cuts 20% of Staff Amid Securities Class Action DAPPER LABS: Nonfungible Token Class Action Suit May Set Precedent DAVID WEBB LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York DELOITTE MANAGEMENT: Court OKs $2.4-M Settlement in Labor Suit DELTA DENTAL: Court Amends Schedule in Class Action Lawsuit to 2025 DOREEN J. SHINDEL: Calixto Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York DUTCH BROS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Minano Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California EXTREME GLOW: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FAMILY MEDICINE: Responds to Class Action Over Cyberattack FCA US: Featherstone Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation FIRST MANAGEMENT: Happ Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Navarro Suit Granted FLORIDA: Summary Judgment Bid in Howard v. FCOR Commissioners OK'd FROST-BURNE: Langley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation GIVE-R LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GODLOVE ENTERPRISES: Flindt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARD ROCK: Cuesta Sues Over ADA Violation HMSHOST CORPORATION: Woodell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation INOTIV INC: Bid to Consolidate Grobler and Burkhart Suits Denied INSTANT BRANDS: Zachary Sues to Recover Wage Payments J.L. HUFFORD COFFEE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JACK HULLAND: Yukon Govt. Files Defence in Proposed Class-Action JAMES AVERY CRAFTSMAN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KIDS CABANA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Friend Suit Alleges KIMONS MOVING: Jiminian Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KOKET LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LAKULESH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dukes Suit Alleges LATINO BITES: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages LENCHO OILFIELD: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage LOVE AND PEBBLE: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARKS & CLERK: Motion to Dismiss Commission Fees' Suit Denied MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Jeweltex Sues Over Exchange Act Violation MDL 2988: $3M Class Settlement in Cookware Suit Gets Final Approval MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Garnere Sues Over Unlawful Bi-Weekly Payment MEREDITH CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Martin Class Complaint META PLATFORMS: CAT Halts Progress of Competition Law Class Action MH/1993/FOODS INC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOLESKINE AMERICA: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MONTREAL, QC: Agrees to Settle Protest Class Action for $6 Million NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Wins Right to Take Suit to Fed. Court NCB MANAGEMENT: Leon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEW PERSPECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Eggeman Suit Alleges NEW WORLD CONDOMINIUMS: Faces Lawsuit After Massive Fire in Florida NEW YORK, NY: To Settle Suit Over Police Brutality in 2020 Protest NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Mammogram Class Action Suit NYC WHOLESALE DIAMONDS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York OKCOIN USA: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Nguyen Class Suit Granted OKLOHAMA: Legal Group Sues Over Jail's Mental Health Services ORGANIZED LIVING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PAYPAL INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit Affecting 35,000 Users PENNSYLVANIA: Central Bucks SD Sued Over Female Teachers' Backpay PNC FINANCIAL: Holtz Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt PRISMA LABS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action RANCHO MESQUITE: Oldham Sues Over Data Breach RC SUPERSTORE INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RED ROBIN: Stipulated Protective Order Issued in Avalos-Aviles Suit REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Medical Info, Suit Claims RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ROSEN SKINCARE: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SG STONE & MASONRY: Perez-Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SPRING SOLA LLC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STAT EXPERTS: Elkadi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SUMMIT UTILITIES: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Price Gouging SYNGENTA CROP: Graham Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina TACO VIDA: Coen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TAPATIO AUTO: Fajardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TEK COLLECT: Whitman Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida TESLA INC: Lamontagne Sues Over Decline in Stock Market Value TIKTOK INC: Fugok Sues Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Broom Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida TREAN INSURANCE: Juan Monteverde Investigates Altaris Merger TRUE BLUE: Pruitt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation TRUE HEALTH: Proposes Settlement to Resolve Data Breach Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Bid for Atty. Fees & Costs in Zhang v. USCIS Denied UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Inmates' Civil Rights Violations UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Prelim. Injunction in Sullivan Reversed VENICE MOTORS: Gardner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages VILLA ROMA RESORT: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WILTON REASSURANCE: Bella Files Suit in S.D. New York WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Settlement Claims Filing Due Set April 24 [*] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! [*] Duane Morris LLP Publishes 2023 Privacy Class Action Review [*] Mintz Attorneys Discuss Rulings in BIPA Class Action Lawsuits [*] New Wave of Class Suits Target Voice Authentication Technology [] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! ********* AARGON AGENCY: Richter Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Richter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aargon Agency, Inc. doing business as: d/b/a Aargon Collection Agency, Case No. 3:23-cv-00220 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Aargon Collection Agency -- https://www.aargon.com/ -- is a nationally licensed debt collection agency headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com ACUSHNET COMPANY: Tanner Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acushnet Company, et al. The case is styled as John Tanner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acushnet Company, Acushnet Holdings Corp., Case No. 8:23-cv-00346-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Acushnet Company -- http://www.acushnetgolf.com/-- is an American company focused on the golf market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM PC Piedmont Center 3535 Piedmont Road, Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 978-6971 Fax: (404) 320-9978 Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com ALDO US: Baptiste Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments ---------------------------------------------------------- Duane Baptiste, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ALDO U.S. INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00728 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed at any time by the Defendant. The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff was compensated every other week, rather than weekly, by Defendant throughout the entirety of his employment. Thus, for the first half of each bi-weekly pay period, the Plaintiff was injured in that he was temporarily deprived of money owed to him, and he could not save, invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully his. Accordingly, every day that said money was not paid to him in a timely fashion, he lost the time value of that money, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inventory associate from June 2015 until June 2016 at one of the Defendant's Manhattan locations. ALDO U.S. INC. is a foreign company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: To Compensate Pass Holders for COVID Shutdowns ---------------------------------------------------------------- sltrib.com reports that Alterra Mountain Company will be giving some skiers and snowboarders a discount on their next Ikon Pass, albeit begrudgingly. Alterra, which runs the multi-resort Ikon Pass, in January settled a $17.5 million class-action lawsuit. As a result, it has agreed to give anyone who held an Ikon Pass in 2019-20 a credit on a future season pass. Alterra joined most of the ski industry in shutting down its resorts earlier than usual during the 2019-20 season because of the COVID-19 outbreak. In response, a dozen separate class-action lawsuits were filed against the company charging that, according to the plantiffs' law firm, Dovel & Luner, pass holders "did not receive the full ski season they bargained for." Those lawsuits were combined and, on Jan. 27 in a federal district court in Colorado, judge Raymond P. Moore granted the settlement. "Although we fully stand by the decision to pause operations in the face of unprecedented and unknown health and safety risks," a statement posted on Alterra's website said, "we wanted to move beyond March 2020 and have agreed to a settlement resolution for our valued pass holders who were impacted." Affected Ikon pass holders began receiving notices of their windfall in their inboxes. Credits will range between $10 for those who used their pass seven days or more and $150 for those who used their pass one day. Holders of unused passes received a full refund. Credits can be applied to the purchase of a 2023-24 pass or a 2024-25 pass and expire in July 2025. Those who do not want to buy another Ikon pass will receive vouchers for discounts of 20%-50% on single-day lift tickets at Alterra-owned resorts. In Utah, that includes Solitude Mountain Resort and Deer Valley Resort. Alterra also has agreements with Alta Ski Area, Snowbird, Brighton and Snowbasin. Vouchers are not valid at those resorts. Alterra is not a publicly traded company and does not disclose how many passes it sells, so it is unclear how many people were affected. The Burlington Free Press estimated that number to be about 500,000. Information on the terms of the credit disbursement can be found at ikonpass.com/en/covid-class-action-credit. Vail Resorts, which offers the Epic Pass for access to its own and partner resorts, was also sued by pass holders seeking prorated refunds after the shortened 2019-20 season. A judge in a federal court in Colorado ruled against the pass holders in that case, but they plan to challenge that decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A key difference between the two cases is that prior to the 2020-21 season, Vail granted 2019-20 Epic Pass holders credits of between 20% and 80% toward a future pass. Where pass holders fell in the range depended on how many days they had used their pass. Alterra, meanwhile, made no concessions to its 2019-20 Ikon pass holders. Vail owns Park City Mountain Resort but also offered days at Snowbasin during the 2019-20 season.[GN] ALTRIA GROUP: $15M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE ALTRIA GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 3:20cv772 (DJN) (E.D. Va.), Judge David J. Novak of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards. The case is a shareholder derivative action arising out of Altria's 2018 investment in Juul Labs, Inc. ("JLI"), a $12.8 billion outlay whose value Altria has since written down by over 90%. On behalf of Altria shareholders, the Plaintiffs allege that certain Altria directors and officers (the "Altria Defendants")2 breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by consciously disregarding the legal, regulatory, reputational and financial risks associated with the JLI investment. They bring additional claims against the Altria Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets. The Consolidated Complaint also sets forth an aiding and abetting cause of action against JLI and certain of its officers and directors (the "Juul Defendants"). After months of discovery and three formal mediation sessions, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the spring of 2022. The Court found this initial agreement lacking, however, and it withheld preliminary approval in late August of last year. Armed with the Court's suggestions as to how to improve the settlement, and with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Mark. R. Colombell, the parties reached a revised settlement in mid-October. The Court preliminarily approved the revised settlement on Oct. 26, 2022. After receiving notice of the proposed settlement, four Altria shareholders filed a joint objection to the proposed settlement. The Objectors outlined three discrete complaints with the proposed settlement, one of which the Court sustained during the first final approval hearing in mid-January. The Court again instructed the parties as to how they could rectify flaws in the proposed settlement. The parties once again amended the proposed settlement, and, upon reviewing the now-twice revised Settlement Agreement, the Objectors informed the Court that the proposed settlement "adequately addressed" their concerns, thus resolving the sustained objection. The Court therefore granted final approval of the settlement. Now, finally, the parties perform their swan song. The Plaintiffs move for a fee and expense award of $17.5 million. The Plaintiffs' Counsel also seeks the Court's approval to disburse a $15,000 service award to each named Plaintiff. The parties reached the $17.5 million figure, which constitutes a 1.5x multiple on the Plaintiffs' Counsel's approximately $11.6 million lodestar, via arbitration. Neither Altria nor the Objectors oppose the Plaintiffs' fee request. The Plaintiffs and their counsel seek an attorneys' fee and expense award of $17.5 million. Such an award would represent a 1.5x multiple on the Plaintiffs' Counsel's lodestar, which the Plaintiffs calculate at approximately $11,664,544.50. The Plaintiffs' Counsel reached their lodestar figure by multiplying 19,398.65 total hours worked by a blended hourly rate of $601.31, which represents the weighted average of the hourly rates for each of the six firms comprising the Plaintiffs' Counsel. Those rates, the Plaintiffs represent, are based on periodic assessments of rates used by firms performing comparable work. The Plaintiffs' Counsel also incurred $220,614.44 in expenses in litigating the instant suit, though the Plaintiffs do not seek a separate expense award. Finally, the Plaintiffs' Counsel requests the Court's approval of a $15,000 service award to each of the five named Plaintiffs. First, Judge Novak assigns diminished weight to the Plaintiffs' Counsel's discussion of the result obtained on behalf of Altria shareholders. He says the Plaintiffs' Counsel negotiated an agreement lacking any enforcement mechanism or independent oversight, necessitating the Court's subsequent efforts to provide these missing elements. Absent the Court's twice-enforced requirement that the parties revise their agreement, the settlement would have conferred far less benefit on Altria's shareholders. Accordingly, a fee award of $15 million -- below the Plaintiffs' Counsel's requested amount -- proves appropriate. Second, Judge Novak also assigns lessened weight to the quality, skill, and efficiency of the attorneys that comprise the Plaintiffs' Counsel. As noted, the deficiencies in the original Settlement Agreement necessitated the Court's intervention in the negotiation process. The initial deal that the Plaintiffs' Counsel struck with Altria amounted to a facade, and Judge Novak does not credit the Plaintiffs' Counsel for their skill and experience where it failed to bring those qualities to bear in the negotiation process. This again counsels a fee award below the requested amount. Third, Judge Novak finds that the risk of nonpayment associated with litigating the instant action proved no more or less significant than the same risk in litigating derivative actions more broadly. Fourth, as the Plaintiffs' Counsel points out, there have been no objections to the proposed fee and expense award. The absence of objections from Altria, JLI, and Altria shareholders weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs' Counsel's fee request. Fifth, the requested fee and expense award, $17.5 million, constitutes approximately 15% of the $117 total funding commitment. That percentage increases to 16% when excluding the $7 million held in reserve, to be deployed only if the Independent Monitor deems necessary. While this rough calculation makes no attempt at estimating the value that the $117 million funding commitment will confer on Altria's shareholders (an impossible exercise), Judge Novak says it suggests that the Plaintiffs' Counsel's fee request falls within the range generally considered reasonable by courts in the Fourth Circuit. Sixth, the absence of dispositive motions practice prior to settlement negotiations similarly suggests a relatively light burden on the Plaintiffs' Counsel. These considerations weigh against the Plaintiffs' Counsel's requested fee award. Seventh, after considering the foregoing policy considerations, Judge Novak believes that attorneys' fees of $15 million will prove sufficient to incentivize qualified counsel to expend the significant resources necessary to litigate meritorious actions. At the same time, however, this fee rests at the lower end of awards in similar cases and therefore counteracts any public perception that the Plaintiffs' lawyers are overcompensated. Finally, the lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the Court's $15 million fee award. Judge Novak holds that a $15 million fee award, while below the Plaintiffs' Counsel's request, adequately compensates the Plaintiffs' Counsel for the time and effort exerted, sufficiently rewards the Plaintiffs' Counsel for the risk they took in litigating a contingent fee case, and adequately incentivizes competent counsel to take up future shareholder derivative actions where meritorious. Hence, he says a $15 million fee award proper. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Novak grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees, Expenses and Awards. He awards the Plaintiffs' Counsel $15 million in attorneys' fees and $220,614.44 in expenses. Furthermore, each named Plaintiff will receive a $15,000 service award. An appropriate Final Order will be issued. The Clerk is directed to file a copy of the Memorandum Opinion electronically and notify all counsel of record. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7yutk9 from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM INC: Sizemore-Easter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Sizemore-Easter, Jacqueline Williams, and William Mozelle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00164 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought against Defendants seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with applicable wage laws and to pay its non-exempt Delivery Associates for all time worked--including overtime--as required to meet Amazon's delivery needs and deliver hundreds of Amazon packages each day. The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. The Plaintiffs observed that other Delivery Associates routinely worked similar hours. The Defendants did not accurately record all time that Delivery Associates spent working for the Defendants. The Plaintiffs performed many of the aforementioned required work duties when they were not "on the clock." As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Collective were not paid for all time worked, including overtime to which they are entitled under the FLSA. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs and other Delivery Associates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and did not pay proper overtime premiums. The Defendants paid Delivery Associates a fixed amount per day and regularly did not pay overtime premiums for hours worked more than 40 in a work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Delivery Associates. Amazon.com, Inc. is a company with principal offices in Seattle, Washington, which operates throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Email: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.om - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 656-3600 Fax: (215) 567-2310 Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Michaela Wallin, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4620 Email: mwallin@bm.net apiazza@bm.net AMERICAN CAR: Former Employees File WARN Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Kim Chaney, writing for ABC24, reports that some former employees of Memphis-based American Car Center have filed a class action lawsuit against the company, after it shut its doors suddenly. The lawsuit accuses American Car Center management of not providing employees with 60 days written notice of their terminations as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). The suit says the two employees from the Memphis headquarters who filed the lawsuit and more than 280 other workers were fired as part of the closing. According to the filed paperwork, the employees learned of the closings and terminations in an email on Feb. 24, 2023, effective immediately. The lawsuit says the workers were fired "without cause." The suit says the workers are owed 60 days of wages and benefits (including pay for accrued time off and pension and 401k contributions), which equals the amount of time the workers would have had if they had written notice through the WARN Act. The lawsuit asks for the 60 days of wages and benefits, attorney fees, and any interest owed for each employee. American Car Center's website lists more than 40 locations mainly across the southeast. The Tennessee State Department of Labor also has a notice on its website saying the agency was notified of a permanent closure on Feb. 24. On Feb. 28, a message on American Car Center's website tells customers they should still continue to make payments to American Financial according to the terms of their agreement. However, they added, "American Financial is not currently able to accept payments to a live representative." These are the options they listed for customers to continue to make payments: -- Pay online through the payment portal -- Pay by phone by calling (877) 720-4477 -- Pay in person at a CheckFreePay location An apology was also included in the message; they also mentioned updates would be posted on the website. [GN] ANOTECH ENERGY: Holden Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Timothy Holden, individually and for others similarly situated v. ANOTECH ENERGY USA INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00733 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant improperly paid the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime compensation. the Defendant never paid The Plaintiff or the Day Rate Workers on a "salary basis," says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Safety Advisor. Anotech specialized in engineering consulting for the energy, infrastructure, and process industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713.352.1100 Facsimile: 713.352.3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com APEX FURNITURE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apex Furniture, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Apex Furniture, LLC d/b/a ApexDesk, Case No. 1:23-cv-01631 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Apex Furniture, LLC doing business as ApexDesk -- https://www.apexdesk.com/ -- offers a variety of height adjustable desk solutions - electric and pneumatic.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Smith's 1st Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRIS SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09527-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Apple Watches. The Plaintiffs allege that First Generation, Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE Apple Watches contain an undisclosed and unreasonably dangerous safety hazard. More specifically, they allege that sudden swelling of the watch batteries can cause the screen to detach, shatter, or crack, exposing its razor-sharp edges and leading to operational failure of the Watch and/or personal injuries. The Plaintiffs allege that Apple failed to allot sufficient space within the watch to prevent the screen issue, despite knowing that the battery inside the Watch can suddenly swell. They further allege that the watches have injured them and the putative class members, creating a substantial and material risk of serious injury, including lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and other injuries. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class, an internet subclass, and state-specific subclasses in Alabama, California, New York, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas. They assert the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) violations of the California Unlawful Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); (2) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"); (3) fraud by omission under various state laws; (4) violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1791 et seq.; (5) breach of implied warranty; (6) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq.; and violations of consumer protection laws in New York, Michigan, and Texas. The Defendant moves to dismiss on several grounds, including that the non-California plaintiffs may not pursue claims under California law, that the claims for equitable relief fail because the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law, and that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged pre-sale knowledge of the defect. First, Judge Gilliam finds that whether non-California plaintiffs may bring claims under California law is an issue better addressed at a later stage. The Defendant does not argue that the non-California plaintiffs fail to meet the Article III standing requirements, nor does it offer any analysis of the differences between California law and other potential jurisdictions. Thus, he declines to conduct a choice of law analysis at this stage and finds that the Defendant has failed to meet its burden on this motion to show that the non-resident Plaintiffs cannot pursue claims under California law. Second, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed to the extent they seek equitable remedies because the Plaintiffs have an equitable remedy at law. Judge Gilliam agrees. He finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that their remedies at law are inadequate. The FAC does not address why monetary damages would be inadequate to make the Plaintiffs whole. He thus dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims to the extent they seek equitable relief, including their UCL claim in its entirety, without prejudice to pursuit in state court. The restitution claim is dismissed without leave to amend. Judge Gilliam grants leave to amend as to other forms of equitable relief, but the Plaintiffs must address why their remedies at law are inadequate. Third, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' omission claims fail because they have not adequately pled pre-sale knowledge of the defect. Assuming the Plaintiffs' allegations are true and drawing all inferences in their favor, Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have raised a plausible inference that the Defendant had pre-sale knowledge of the defect. The Defendant also argues that the omission claims of those who did not experience the defect within the warranty period fail because the Plaintiffs did not adequately plead an unreasonable safety hazard. Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a safety hazard giving rise to a duty to disclose. The causal connection between the defect and the risk of personal injury is obvious and far from speculative given the allegations that the Plaintiffs and the class members were actually injured. Fourth, the Defendant argues that the UCL, CLRA, and common law claims of Plaintiffs Rogers and Smithson are time-barred. The Plaintiffs respond that the delayed discovery rule, which tolls the statute of limitations, applies. Judge Gilliam finds that Plaintiffs Smithson and Rogers have not alleged facts sufficient to invoke the delayed discovery rule. He dismisses Plaintiffs Smithson's and Rogers' UCL, CLRA, and California common law claims as time-barred with leave to amend to add allegations sufficient to allow them to invoke the delayed discovery rule. Fifth, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled claims under the consumer protection statutes of Michigan, New York, and Texas. Judge Gilliam disagrees. He says the Plaintiffs adequately allege that the Defendant knew of the defect and failed to disclose it before sale, and that the Plaintiffs would not have purchased their watches had they known. Sixth, the Defendant argues that its Limited Warranty effectively disclaims implied warranties. Judge Gilliam agrees. Like several other courts, he finds that the Defendant's Limited Warranty is valid because it mentions merchantability and is sufficiently conspicuous. Because the Defendant's Limited Warranty effectively disclaimed the implied warranty of merchantability as a matter of law, he dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim without leave to amend. Seventh, the Defendant argues that the Song-Beverly Act claim fails because (1) the Plaintiffs have not alleged the defect was substantially certain to manifest and (2) the claims of all the Plaintiffs except Ortega are time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Judge Gilliam holds that the Song-Beverly Act claims of all the Plaintiffs except Ortega are time-barred under the Act's four-year statute of limitations, which began to run at the time of sale. He dismisses the Song-Beverly Act claims of all the Plaintiffs, except Ortega, as time-barred. He grants leave to amend to adequately allege facts showing why their claims are timely. Finally, the FAC names only 12 Plaintiffs. Judge Gilliam thus finds that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' MMWA claim and dismisses it with leave to amend. If the Plaintiffs cannot, consistent with counsel's Rule 11 obligations, plead enough named Plaintiffs to meet the MMWA's numerosity requirement for a class action, they may not renew the putative class claim. Consistent with the foregoing, Judge Gilliam grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed within 28 days of the date of the Order. Judge Gilliam further sets a telephonic case management conference on April 4, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. All counsel will use the following dial-in information to access the call: Dial-In: 888-808-6929; Passcode: 6064255 The parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a joint case management statement by March 28, 2023. They should be prepared to discuss how to move the case forward efficiently. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5dah6rf2 from Leagle.com. BAJCO 100: Hawn Can Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TERESA HAWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. BAJCO 100, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22CV1337 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants in part Plaintiffs Teresa Hawn, Nichole Hawn, and Dewitt Slade's Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. The Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify the matter as an FLSA collective action and authorize that notice of the pendency of the action be sent to similarly situated co-workers. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Teresa Hawn, Nichole Hawn, and Dewitt Slade's Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. The Plaintiffs suggest that notice be given to the following: "All current and former delivery drivers employed at the Papa John's stores owned, operated, or controlled by Defendants between the date three years prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the Court's Order approving notice." The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has implicitly upheld a two-step procedure for determining whether a FLSA case should proceed as a collective action. The first phase takes place at the beginning of discovery. The second occurs after all of the opt-in forms have been received and discovery has concluded. First, the Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify this case as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and direct that notice be sent to employees identified as similarly situated. Specifically, they request the Court to to (1) authorize them to send notice of this action to the delivery drivers who have worked at the Defendants' Papa John's stores dating back three years prior to the filing of the complaint, (2) approve the their proposed Notice and methods of disseminating notice, (3) order the Defendants to provide names and contact information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of the court's order, and (4) authorize a 60-day opt-in period. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a minimum wage claim. They also argue that the Plaintiffs have waived their right to pursue their claims on a class wide basis due to the Plaintiffs' executed arbitration agreements. They further argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that their average hourly wage fell below minimum wage in any workweek. Given the two-step process for determining whether a proposed class is "similarly situated," and that discovery has yet to take place, Judge Pearson simply looks to whether the Plaintiffs have made the requisite modest factual showing that the parties are similarly situated. She finds that the Plaintiffs have met the burden to support the existence of a similarly situated class. Hence, that class is conditionally certified. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs are barred from pursuing a collective action due to a waiver of rights stemming from the arbitration agreements. They maintain that the Court must afford them the opportunity to make the showing of which individuals entered the agreements. Contrarily, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court is not at liberty to assess the relevance of arbitration agreements when making conditional certification determinations because that would amount to a merit-based determination, premature at this stage of litigation. Judge Pearson opines that the sole consequence of conditional certification is the sending of court-approved written notice to employees, who in turn become parties to a collective action only by filing written consent with the court. This authorization will neither dilute the employer-employee bargain pertaining to arbitration, nor will it deprive the Defendants of their opportunity to show that putative members of the class agreed to arbitration. Should it be determined that employees have signed an agreement to arbitrate rather than litigate, and the agreements are valid and enforceable, the Defendants will maintain the right to exclude those employees from the litigation and proceed with arbitration. The existence of possible arbitration agreements does not serve as a barrier to granting conditional certification. Alternatively, after a finding that the Plaintiffs have met their burden for conditional certification, the Defendants request that the Court modifies the Plaintiffs' proposed class, Notice and Consent Form. Judge Pearson grants in part the Defendants' request. First, she modifies the language of the Sections 2 and 3 of the Notice and Consent Form. However, she finds modifications to the scope of the proposed class unnecessary, capable of confusing opt-in plaintiffs and, as a result, likely to cloud the decision-making process of those considering joining the action. Having ruled that the instant FLSA collective action is conditionally certified, Judge Pearson grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum of Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2yf32dyj from Leagle.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Ngo Sues Over Unlawful Withholding of Cash Rewards ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christy Ngo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 2:23-at-00187 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law as a result of the Defendant withholding properly earned cash rewards from customers, without a valid reason. The Defendant's business model is to reward the customer with cash rewards dependent on the amount spent on the credit card. The cash rewards are in the form of cash to be credited back to the account. The points do not expire and continuously accrue as long as the card is being used. On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff discovered her Bank of America debit card was no longer active and promptly called the Defendant. The Defendant informed the Plaintiff that it had frozen her account on or around September 1, 2022, and that it would close her checking and savings account permanently by the end of September 2022. Furthermore, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that it would be freezing her account on September 17, 2022. Immediately after hearing this, the Plaintiff withdrew all of the money in her checking and savings account, worried that she would lose access to all her money. Due to Defendant closing the account, the Plaintiff lost all of the cash rewards she had been earning and accumulating. While when voluntarily closing an account, one can redeem the cash rewards, when the account is involuntarily closed, the Defendant's policy is that the cash rewards are lost. A reasonable consumer in a similar situation would not understand that cash rewards earned, would be lost if the Defendant unilaterally closed the account. A reasonable consumer would similarly not understand the terms, as the business practice of Defendant is to present the information in a deceptive and rapid manner that is intended to disguise the terms of the cash rewards. Since the Plaintiff has had the credit card, she has been accruing cash rewards and therefore the Plaintiff incurred actual financial losses due the Defendant's failure to provide the cash rewards to Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "consumer." The Defendant's primary business is operating as a multinational investment bank and financial services holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Aryanna Young, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: aryanna@kazlg.com BINDLE BOTTLE: Mikalacki Sues Over High Levels of Lead ------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Mikalacki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BINDLE BOTTLE LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00881 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for the manufacture and sale of Bindle Bottles ("Bindle Bottles" or "the Products"), all of which suffer from an identical defect because they contain extremely high levels of lead, a dangerous neurotoxin (the "Defect"). The Defect renders the Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose and therefore the Products are completely worthless at the point of purchase. Based on Defendant's own words—as written in its ineffective and, at best, mismanaged recall--"acute lead poisoning may cause a wide range of symptoms, including abdominal pain, muscle weakness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and bloody or decreased urinary output. Children are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning. If a child is exposed to lead for a protracted period of time (e.g., weeks to months) permanent damage to the central nervous system can occur. This can result in learning disorders, developmental defects, and other long-term health problems. Clinical signs in dogs with acute lead poisoning may include lethargy, anorexia, behavioral changes, ataxia (wobbly gait), tremors, and seizures." In addition, the Products contain, or risk containing, bisphenol A ("BPA"), a chemical linked to fertility problems and certain cancers, despite Defendant's express representations that the bottles are "100% BPA FREE." Despite these risks, the Defendant has rested on its laurels, asking the CPSC, FDA, and the media to do its bidding. But these efforts have been unsuccessful. The Defendant's disastrous recall has left consumers uninformed and confused. Defendant began its recall offering one remedy--a refund--only to replace that remedy with another, an ineffective repair that few consumers have taken advantage of given their loss of trust in Bindle and continued concerns that Defendant has underreported the gravity of the problem. After all, no reasonable consumer--of the few who did hear of Defendant's recall--would desire to continue using Defendant's Products given the serious risks posed to their health. Consequently, consumers are still very much at risk of severe health problems attributed to the Defect. The Plaintiff brings claims against the Defendant individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of the Products for violations of California consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, fraud, and Unjust Enrichment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Products twice. The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. Sean L. Litteral, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com slitteral@bursor.com BINDLE BOTTLE: Suit Alleges Exposed Lead Levels of Water Bottles ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alanna Madden, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Bindle Bottle caught more heat, this time in the form of a class action accusing the water bottle company of swindling consumers and dodging responsibility for a mass recall of its products. The class action, filed on Feb. 27 by lead plaintiff Jennifer Mikalacki in the Northern District of California, comes days after Bindle recalled water bottle products that contain exposed lead on the soldering dot located in the bottom storage compartment of the bottle. Mikalacki's claims run the gamut of California consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, fraud and unjust enrichment. According to Bindle's recall published through the CDC, reports by Lead Safe Mama and Consumer Reports led the company to suspend production and test products for lead. "As part of the recall, consumers who purchased a Bindle Bottle are eligible to receive at-home repair kits to rectify the issue," Bindle said in the recall, claiming the issue would be handled by covering the exposed lead. But Mikalacki insists no exposure of lead is safe and Bindle's response to the recall is inadequate. According to the lawsuit, on Feb. 10, 2023, Consumer Reports tested the small 'sealing dot' and found the lead content ranged from "90,800 parts per million to 155,000 parts per million." "Ashita Kapoor, an associate director of product safety at Consumer Reports who oversaw the tests, noted that the Bindle Bottles had 'exposed lead levels that are approximately 1,100 times that of the levels legally allowed in many consumer products,'" Mikalacki says in the complaint, quoting a Consumer Reports' article that does not directly provide a lab result. A request to Kapoor to confirm the report -- which is not cited in the lawsuit either -- was not returned by press time. Mikalacki says Bindle initially offered its customers a full refund following the Consumer Reports revelation before immediately modifying its stance to only offer at-home repair kits and removing its return policy online. "In its current iteration of the recall, defendant solely offers an at-home repair kit," Mikalacki says in the complaint. "That is, consumers are not given the option of obtaining a refund. Instead, consumers must trust that defendant has isolated the scope of the problem and provided an effective repair -- a momentous ask from a company that has inordinately abused the public's trust." But lead isn't the only problem with Bindle Bottles, according to Mikalacki: Consumer Reports also tested the outside of three Bindle Bottles and found evidence of Bisphenol A or BPA -- a chemical compound with potential health risks. Bindle claims its bottles are 100% BPA free. Mikalacki claims Bindle's marketing and labeling of its products are "materially deceptive, false and misleading" given its "omission about the presence (or risk) of BPA." Representatives for Bindle did not respond to a request for comment by press time. Mikalacki seeks class certification, a court order for Bindle to stop selling contaminated products and to provide a real remedy to the lead and BPA issues, and compensatory and punitive damages. She is represented by Sean Litteral of the firm Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek, California. [GN] BLOCKFI INC: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action lawsuit against Zac Prince, Flori Marquez, Amit Cheela, David Olsson, and Samia Bayou, individuals who are or were officers and directors of BlockFi, Inc. and related BlockFi entities, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:23-cv-10472), on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who invested in BlockFi Interest Accounts ("BIA"). The class period for the federal securities claims is March 4, 2019 to, and including, November 28, 2022. BlockFi and their affiliates are presently subject to bankruptcy proceedings filed in November of 2022 and are not named as defendants in this action. The case has been assigned to Judge Indira Talwani and is pending in the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse for the District of Massachusetts located at 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. The Complaint alleges that BlockFi, its affiliates, and the BlockFi Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements to promote BIAs, including that BIAs were a secure method of collecting interest. In addition, the Complaint alleges that BlockFi and the BlockFi Individual Defendants omitted and concealed material information concerning the risks associated with BIAs. The Complaint further alleges BlockFi and the Individual Defendants engaged in the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Sections 5, 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by selling BIAs to investors. The lawsuit also alleges claims for violation of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Massachusetts General Law Chapter 110A. If you invested in BIAs between March 4, 2019 and November 28, 2022, you may move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class on or before May 1, 2023. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to share in any recovery that may be obtained.[GN] BLUETRITON BRANDS: Payne Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments --------------------------------------------------------- Andre Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00939 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law and to recover underpayment caused by untimely wage payments and other damages for the Plaintiff and similarly situated manual positions such as dispenser cleaner technicians (collectively, "Manual Workers") who work or have worked for the Defendant. The Defendant has compensated the Plaintiff and all other Manual Workers in New York on a bi-weekly basis. Despite being manual workers, the Defendant has failed to properly pay the Plaintiff and other Manual Workers in New York their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this regard, the Defendant has failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Manual Workers in New York, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by BlueTriton as a Manual Worker from 2018 until October 17, 2022 in Manhattan and Queens. BlueTriton Brands, Inc. is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 BREAD FINANCIAL: Reed Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt ----------------------------------------------------------- Trisha Reed, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. BREAD FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. CACE-23-002521 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful collection of debt. Pursuant to the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person shall: "communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the debtor." On February 1, 2023, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to the Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The Communication was a communication in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 2:24 AM in the Plaintiff's zone. The Defendant sent an electronic communication to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent to the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of the Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the Communication, the Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place of business located in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com CALIFORNIA CANDLE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Candle Supply. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. California Candle Supply, Case No. 1:23-cv-01594 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. California Candle Supply -- https://calcandlesupply.com/ -- offer a complete line of high quality candle making supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Bid to Approve Heitzman's $225K FLSA Deal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEREMY HEITZMAN, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALVERT'S EXPRESS AUTO SERVICE & TIRE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-2001-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement without prejudice to refiling. Heitzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brings the putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and putative class action under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"), against the Defendant. Calvert's is a company that provides autobody repair and maintenance services throughout the states of Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas. Each location services customers by performing routine maintenance and repair work on customers' vehicles. Heitzman worked for the Defendant as a Shop Manager from approximately April of 2018, until approximately September of 2021. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Oct. 21, 2021, alleging that he, and others similarly situated, regularly worked more than forty hours per week but were paid a day rate plus bonus that was not based on their overtime hours actually worked. The Complaint alleges a putative collective action claim for FLSA overtime pay violations, and a putative class action for overtime pay violations under the MMWL. The case was transferred to this Court on a joint motion by the parties on Dec. 29, 2021. On Oct. 6, 2022, the Court conditionally certified a FLSA collective action for the following class of persons: All current and former Shop Managers and District Managers who were paid a day rate while working for Calvert's Express Auto Service & Tire anywhere in the United States, at any time from Oct. 21, 2018, through the date the Court grants conditional certification. On Nov. 2, 2022, the parties notified the Court that they had reached an amicable resolution of this matter on a collective, opt-in basis, and on Dec. 19, 2022, they filed the pending joint motion seeking settlement approval. The motion asks the Court to approve the Settlement Agreement in full, which pertains to the FLSA claims only. The motion does not mention the state law claims, nor does it seek final collective action certification. Under the parties' settlement agreement, the Defendant will pay a total of $225,000 in exchange for a release of claims. The settlement fund is to be allocated as follows: $6,760 in fees and expenses incurred by an independent claims administrator, a $10,000 service award to Heitzman, and attorneys' fees to the Plaintiff's counsel not to exceed $90,000, with the remaining settlement fund allocated on a pro rata basis to all collective action members. Judge Robinson finds that (i) the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable; (ii) the attorney fee award of $90,000, or 40%, is consistent with awards approved in similar cases; (iii) the Plaintiff incurred reputational harm by publicly attaching his name to the lawsuit against his former employer, which she factors in to her decision to reduce the requested service award to $2,000; and (iv) claims administrator ILYM Group, Inc.'s fees and costs amounting to $6,760 is fair and reasonable. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a state law claim under the MMWL for overtime pay, which is not subject to the collective action provisions of the FLSA. Thus, this claim is not addressed by the parties' settlement agreement. The parties will either file a stipulation of dismissal as to this claim, or notify the Court in their renewed motion of the status of the state law claim in light of their settlement agreement. In sum, Judge Robinson denies the parties' motion without prejudice to refiling. The parties will file a renewed motion that addresses final collective action certification and advises the Court of the status of the remaining state law claim under the MMWL. She preliminarily approves the settlement agreement, with the exception of the service award to Heitzman, which she reduces to $2,000. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/32whukzz from Leagle.com. CANADA: Court Hearing in Indian Day School Abuse Suit Started ------------------------------------------------------------- Today marks the grim start of the journey for justice by the Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council (Six Nations) and Indian Day School survivor Audrey Hill (Ms. Hill) against the Federal Liberal Government. This morning will be the first attendance before the court in the legal challenge initiated against the federal government by Six Nations and Ms. Hill, calling for the Federal Liberal Government to do the right thing and extend the time for Indian Day School survivors to get compensation for the abuse and trauma they suffered. "We are disappointed to be forced to take these steps by the Federal Liberal Government to seek justice for IDS survivors, who have suffered long-lasting trauma as a result of the abuse they faced at these schools," said Chief of Six Nations Mark Hill. "We cannot be silent as members of our communities are left uncompensated for the wrongs committed against them by Canada. IDS survivors must have a fair and meaningful opportunity to make a claim-that is what reconciliation requires." The legal journey kicked off this morning with a Federal Court case conference convened to deal with procedural matters in the lawsuit, which concerns a class action settlement intended to compensate survivors of systemic abuse at government-run schools for Indigenous children. Six Nations and Ms. Hill have filed statements that set out how the process for IDS survivors to seek compensation, which ended on January 13, 2023, was derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic. They believe a significant number of survivors have not been able to make a claim before the deadline due to the lack of culturally sensitive supports and the unfairly short timeline. To give class members a true opportunity to seek compensation, Six Nations and Ms. Hill argue the deadline should be extended to December 31, 2025. The federal government has not yet filed materials responding to Six Nations and Ms. Hill's legal action. The COVID-19 pandemic hit almost immediately after the IDS claims process opened in January 2020 and had a massive impact on Indigenous communities like Six Nations. Information and assistance regarding the claims process were largely provided online, but approximately two-thirds of households in Indigenous communities do not have access to high-speed internet. Six Nations and Ms. Hill also identify several other barriers facing IDS survivors, such as the lack of culturally sensitive and trauma-informed supports. "People who saw abuse at the day schools need to have support and time in order to engage with their memories and disclose the things that happened to them," said Ms. Hill. "There was a 1-800 number for support and assistance but that is not a meaningful support for our people, many of whom went through unspeakable things. You can't rush the process. There are people out there who are eligible for a claim but haven't made one because they are not ready to talk about what happened to them." To date, no extension to the claims process has been granted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite Canada's agreement to extensions in other class action settlements such as the First Nations drinking water class action. "Indigenous leaders have been raising concerns and calling for an extension for over a year, but the Federal Liberal Government has not addressed our concerns at all," said Chief Hill. "The government needs to move quickly to extend the claims process. It is long past time for mere acknowledgments and empty words about reconciliation. We need a systemic solution so no survivors are left out." Through the courts, Six Nations and Ms. Hill are seeking an extension of the claims deadline to December 31, 2025. The same class action settlement is also being challenged in another proceeding before the Federal Court of Appeal, where survivors are seeking a declaration that they may amend claims that have already been made to be more fully compensated for their harms. Background Generations of Indigenous children suffered systemic emotional, physical, and sexual abuse at Indian Day Schools (IDS) operated and controlled by the Government of Canada for over a century IDS survivors launched a class action lawsuit against the federal government. In 2019, a settlement agreement was established to compensate class members (Agreement). The Agreement arbitrarily set the claims period at two and a half years, compared to five for the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, which affected approximately half as many class members. The claims period began on January 13, 2020, and was quickly derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a disproportionate impact on Indigenous communities. Claims for compensation stopped being accepted after January 13, 2023. The Agreement specifically called for cultural sensitivity to minimize the risk that class members would be retraumatized when claiming compensation. This did not happen. Class members did not receive adequate notice and assistance to complete their claims, and the claims period was too short for a trauma-based case, particularly in light of the pandemic. On December 20, 2022, Six Nations and Audrey Hill launched a court challenge to extend the time for making a claim for compensation to December 31, 2025. [GN] CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Mudahy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Najuah Mudahy, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; HEALTH NET, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV02394 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 seeking unpaid compensations from the Defendants. The Defendants' violated the Labor Code based on the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com whteam@lelawfirm.com CIG LOGISTICS: Mobley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Ronald Mobley, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. CIG Logistics LLC, and Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00136-O (N.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought against Defendants seeking unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants knew that it was required to pay the Plaintiff and the WSO for all hours worked, including hours spent traveling away from their home communities to job sites. The Defendants improperly reduced its employees' regular rate when calculating overtime by wrongfully excluding certain forms of compensation, including stipends and allowances. In so doing, the Defendants failed to properly compensate the Plaintiffs for overtime worked pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly non-exempt WSO. CIG Logistics LLC is a Delaware Company doing business in multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Phone: (713) 223 – 8855 Email: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com - and - David Glenn, Esq. 1017 William D Tate Ave, Ste 100 Grapevine, TX 76051-4092 Phone: (817) 424-5999 Fax: (817) 481-3240 Email: Davidglenn@glennlawfirm.com CLEVELAND BROTHERS: MacMichael Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cleveland Brothers Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Robert MacMichael, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cleveland Brothers Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00328-WSS (W.D. Pa., Feb. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Cleveland Brothers -- https://www.clevelandbrothers.com/ -- provides new and used Cat equipment, including machinery, parts, service, and rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: cab@colevannote.com DAPPER LABS: Cuts 20% of Staff Amid Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Josh Scott, writing for Betakit, reports that Vancouver-based Web3 company Dapper Labs has laid off 20 percent of its full-time employees. A post from Dapper Labs founder and CEO Roham Gharegozlou called the latest round of layoffs part of a restructuring. Dapper Labs did not share further details regarding the nature of this corporate restructure or disclose the exact number of employees that were impacted by the decision. According to LinkedIn, Dapper Labs currently has a headcount of 497, indicating that the layoffs could impact as many as 100 members of the company's team. When reached for additional comment, a Dapper Labs spokesperson did not respond to questions, instead directing BetaKit to the company's letter to employees. These cuts represent Dapper Labs' second round of significant layoffs since November, when BetaKit reported that the firm shed 22 percent of its staff as part of a broader refocus of strategy and reorganization of teams. Prior to those cuts, per the company's LinkedIn profile, Dapper Labs had 613 employees. According to LinkedIn data and the percentages shared by Dapper Labs, both rounds of layoffs put the company's current headcount at less than 400. Dapper Labs' latest layoffs, first reported by The Block, were confirmed by Dapper Labs in a letter to employees published on February 23 to the company's website. Gharegozlou wrote that Dapper Labs is cutting staff as part of a push to improve its "focus and efficiency." Dapper Labs' most recent layoffs come as the firm contends with a broader crypto winter that has seen the demand for and value of the non-fungible tokens (NFTs) it develops drop. Amid these conditions and the NFT market crash, Dapper Labs is also facing a class action lawsuit claiming its NBA Top Shot Moments NFTs constitute unregistered securities. The suit's plaintiffs allege that Dapper Labs violated United States (US) securities law by selling Moments to professional basketball fans without registering them with regulators. The lawsuit also alleges that Dapper improperly controlled the collectibles. Earlier, United States District Judge Victor Marrero denied Dapper Labs' motion to dismiss the suit before trial. Founded in 2018, Dapper Labs is the blockchain company behind a variety popular NFT collectible projects, from CryptoKitties to NBA Top Shot. To date, the Web3 firm has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from a group of investors that includes Andreessen Horowitz, Google Ventures, Coatue, and Version One Ventures, reaching a reported valuation of $7.6 billion in 2021 during the NFT market boom. But market conditions have deteriorated since then, and Dapper Labs has joined a growing list of other tech and crypto companies to lay off members of its team. As BetaKit has previously reported, in addition to its November layoffs and this latest staff reduction, Dapper Labs also quietly shed a number of other employees in what the company described as "performance-related" cuts. Amid this challenging environment, Gharegozlou asserted in the letter that Dapper Labs "remains in a strong cash position with no outstanding debt. RELATED: Dapper Labs lays off 22 percent of staff According to Gharegozlou, Dapper Labs generated $135 million in top-line sales in 2022, down about 19 percent from the $167 million the company pulled in 2021 during the peak of the NFT market. These sales figures include money Dapper Labs generated from packs, five percent of transactions that took place on its marketplace, and wallet fees. "With the right cost structure, we can think long term," wrote Gharegozlou. "Our goal is to grow our communities sustainably, prioritizing the health and authenticity of each product." Despite these cuts and current crypto market conditions, Gharegozlou claimed that Dapper Labs remains committed to its flagship products, has several major launches planned for 2023, and is "more confident than ever that Web3 will remake digital life for the better for billions of people, over time." [GN] DAPPER LABS: Nonfungible Token Class Action Suit May Set Precedent ------------------------------------------------------------------ Casey Wagner, writing for Blockworks, reports that Dapper Labs may not get its way in the class action lawsuit against its Top Shot NFTs, and other projects should be on notice, attorneys say. Counsel from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP said that the court's decision to allow the class action, alleging Top Shot moments are securities, to move forward foreshadows how NFTs may be treated in the future. US District Judge Victor Marreo determined the plaintiff's argument -- that Dapper Lab's NBA Top Show Moments passes the Howey Test -- is plausible. But ruling against dismissal does not in and of itself signify any ruling, attorneys said. The Howey Test has four main pillars to determine whether an asset is a security: Has money been invested? Is it a common enterprise? Is there a reasonable expectation of profit? Is the profit derived from the efforts of others? There was an undisputed investment of money, Dapper Labs and the plaintiffs agree, and, Marreo said in the filing, it could be conceived that there was a pooling of funds as Moments sales created revenue and supported the Flow blockchain, which has its own native token, FLOW. As for reasonable expectation of profits, it is feasible that Moments values were determined by Dapper Labs' ability to turn a profit, Marreo said. A key factor in the case is going to come down to Dapper Lab's sole control over the marketplace where Moments were bought and sold, giving Dapper the ability to "significantly, if not entirely, dictate[d] Moments' use and value." "This aspect of the court's ruling highlights the potential regulatory risks of a ‘walled garden' business model where the NFT issuer creates its own marketplace that serves as the only place for buyers and sellers to trade," attorneys wrote in a contributed piece to Columbia Law School's blog. The plaintiffs, in their allegations, argued Moments' royalty structure makes them a horizontal commonality, meaning there was a "pooling of funds tied to the success of the overall venture." Plaintiffs also said Dapper is operating a vertical commonality because it collects a percentage on each sale. The court agreed there was adequate evidence to the horizontal commonality argument, but not the vertical commonality allegations. "The court held that the presence of seller royalties not directionally linked to an NFT holder's profits or losses is insufficient, by itself, to establish vertical commonality between the promoter and purchasers -- a ruling that could have broader ramifications given the near-ubiquity of royalties in the NFT market," the attorneys wrote. There is legal precedent to accept both types of commonalities as evidence an asset is a security, attorneys at Winston and Strawn noted. It is unclear whether the case will proceed to trial or if a settlement may be reached. A precedent could be set. [GN] DAVID WEBB LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Webb, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. David Webb, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01514 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. David Webb -- https://www.davidwebb.com/ -- offers exceptional fine jewelry from America's quintessential jeweler.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DELOITTE MANAGEMENT: Court OKs $2.4-M Settlement in Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cosimo Morin reports that in Phillip v Deloitte Management Services LLP et al, the Ontario Superior Court recently approved a $2.4 million dollar settlement in a class action alleging employee misclassification and breaches of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). The class action commenced nearly 8 years ago and involved approximately 500 individuals who provided document review and e-discovery services through independent contractor agreements with the defendants. The claim sought damages relating to an alleged failure to compensate document reviewers for benefits prescribed by the ESA including minimum hourly wage, overtime pay, vacation pay, as well as damages relating to CPP and EI payments. The class action was partially approved by the Court in 2017 and then fully approved in 2018. This decision dealt with a motion seeking court approval of a $2.4 million dollar settlement amount, class counsel legal fees, payment to the Class Proceedings Fund, the distribution method and notice documents, as well as an honorarium of "no more than" $20,000 for the representative plaintiff. In approving the settlement, Justice Belobaba relied on what he referred to as a "detailed and candid affidavit" filed by class counsel and focused his approval on two points. First, that there was good reason to doubt the recoverability of the CPP and EI payments claimed because the amounts had already been refunded. When these claimed amounts were deducted from the overall claim, the amount in issue fell well below the settlement amount. Second, Justice Belobaba noted that the settlement amount was achieved after two days of mediation before a highly experienced mediator who recommended the settlement amount and that there were no objections from the class members. Justice Belobaba approved the remaining elements of the settlement, but only awarded the representative plaintiff an honorarium of $8000 on the basis that while his level of involvement was not "truly extraordinary" he did incur some personal and financial hardship. The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP.[GN] DELTA DENTAL: Court Amends Schedule in Class Action Lawsuit to 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Burger at ada.org reports that in 2019, the ADA filed a class action lawsuit against the Delta Dental Plans and the Delta Dental Plans Association, and in January, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois amended its scheduling order to allow the parties additional time to conduct discovery. The earliest this case potentially could proceed to trial is now sometime in late 2025. The case has now been pending for more than three years, but is still in its relatively early stages, said the ADA's Division of Legal Affairs. This extended timing is not unusual, said the division, as class action lawsuits typically take years to be resolved, especially complex antitrust cases. There are motions, extensive document productions, fact depositions, expert witnesses, a class certification hearing, and then additional discovery and various pre-trial motions - all before you even get to a trial, and potentially an appeal after the trial. The COVID-19 pandemic also impacted the timing of most court proceedings. The ADA's lawsuit alleges that Delta violated federal antitrust laws by allocating territories of operation and dividing the national market in order to restrict competition and reduce reimbursement amounts. The complaint goes on to allege that Delta's allegedly anticompetitive acts hurt both dentists and their patients by limiting the choices of dental care available to patients and making it more difficult for dentists to deliver the care that patients need and want. Numerous individual dentists also filed class action complaints against Delta, and the allegations in the various complaints have since been combined into a single consolidated complaint. Judge Elaine Bucklo, in the federal district court, is presiding over the consolidated pretrial proceedings in the litigation. The Delta defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but Judge Bucklo issued an opinion denying Delta's motion in September 2020. With the discovery process ongoing, the parties are exchanging and reviewing voluminous amounts of documents as well as taking depositions relevant to the issue of class certification. The court's scheduling order allows the parties to take up to 190 fact depositions, followed by briefing and a hearing for the court to decide whether the case should proceed as a class action - which is an important milestone in any class action lawsuit, according to the ADA's legal division. The plaintiffs are asking the court to certify a class of all dental providers in the United States who were reimbursed by a Delta Dental defendant, so that all dentists who have been injured by Delta's allegedly anticompetitive conduct will be able to obtain appropriate money damages and benefit from an injunction making Delta change its practices. Under the court's revised scheduling order, the court will hold a hearing on the issue of class certification in late 2024 or early 2025. ADA News will continue to update members when there are developments in the case. [GN] DOREEN J. SHINDEL: Calixto Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doreen J. Shindel & Associates, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Veronica Calixto, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Doreen J. Shindel & Associates, P.C., Doreen J. Shindel, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:23-cv-01527 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Doreen J. Shindel & Associates, P.C. -- https://doreenjshindel.com/ -- is a Lawyer in Coram, New York representing personal injury and medical malpractice cases in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Karl Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd. Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (646) 459-7971 Fax: (646) 459-7973 Email: jkj@legaljones.com DUTCH BROS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Peacock v. Dutch Bros Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01794, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Dutch Bros Inc. ("Dutch Bros" or the "Company") (NYSE: BROS) securities between March 1, 2022 and May 11, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Dutch Bros investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/Dutch-Bros-Inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On May 11, 2022, after the market closed, Dutch Bros issued a press release announcing poor financial results for the first quarter of 2022. Therein, the Company reported a net loss of $16.3 million, compared to a net loss of $4.8 million for the first quarter of 2021. The Company also reported an adjusted net loss of $2.5 million (a loss of $0.02 per share). The Company explained that the results were due to "[its] decision to be disciplined on the price [it] took . . . ; faster inflation and cost of goods, especially in dairy; the pull forward of deferred expenses related to the maintenance of shops; and normal new store inefficiency amplified by the volume of new and ramping units in quarter 1." On this news, Dutch Bros' share price fell $9.26, or 26.9%, to close at $25.11 per share on May 12, 2022, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing increased costs and expenses, including on dairy; (2) that, as a result, the Company was experiencing increased margin pressure and decreased profitability in the first quarter of 2022; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Dutch Bros securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Minano Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Minano, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Barclays Bank Delaware, Case No. 3:23-cv-00333-BTM-DDL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/ -- operates as an information services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Stieglitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com EXTREME GLOW: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extreme Glow NA Corporation. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Extreme Glow NA Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01589 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Extreme Glow North America Corporation -- https://www.extremeglow.com/ -- is a privately-owned United States company chartered in the state of Mississippi, specializing in marketing glow-in-the-dark and chemical glow products at reasonable prices to the world on the internet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com FAMILY MEDICINE: Responds to Class Action Over Cyberattack ---------------------------------------------------------- KAMR/KCIT, writing for Myhighplains.com, reports that officials with Family Medicine Centers Services, LLC (FMC Services) are responding to a consolidated class action petition surrounding a cybersecurity attack against the company in 2022, denying the claims by community members that FMC failed to safeguard their information exposed in the attack. According to previous reports by MyHighPlains.com, four lawsuits were combined into one in December 2022, claiming that FMC Services LLC. did not do enough to protect "personally identifiable information and protected health information for more than 230,000 community members," after a network data security incident was detected in late July 2022. The information exposed in the breach was reported to include names, mailing addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and other protected health information. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security rules in their combined lawsuit. They said at the time that FMC "owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect and safeguard" their information "against unauthorized access and disclosure," alleging that FMC failed to implement and maintain "reasonable security procedures and practices" to protect their patients' information. In the defendants' response, filed on Feb. 22 in the 320th District Court of Potter County, FMC Services, LLC Is invoking Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures, an overall general denial of the claims. The defendants also stressed in the documents that it is "(exercising) its right to require (the) plaintiffs prove all the allegations contained in the Plaintiffs' pleadings, if Plaintiffs can prove them, which is denied." "Accordingly, Defendant generally denies, each and all, plural and singular, the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' last active pleading," the documents read, "…and demands strict proof thereof." Highland Park ISD releases statement regarding staffing, programs In the response, the defendants' legal team goes on to claim that there are "insufficient facts" to pursue a class action suit in this case, claiming that the plaintiffs' are "not proper representatives of the class they are alleged to represent and do not have claims typical of the purported class." They also claim that the class is not all in a similar situation and that there are no "common questions of fact or law" among the class. The response also claims that the defendants "did not owe any duty of care" to the plaintiffs, "did not breach any duty of care" to the plaintiffs and did not owe any "fiduciary duty(ies)" to the plaintiffs. ". . . Defendant prays that after final hearing, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice, and order plaintiffs take nothing," the response ends. "Defendant further prays it recovers all other relief, both at law and in equity, including sanctions, attorney fees, costs of court, statutory damages and all other relief to which it may be justly entitled." When the lawsuits were initially filed, officials with FMC provided a statement to MyHighPlains.com at that time, stating that they were unable to comment on the ongoing litigation. But they stressed that they are continuing to improve "the security of (their) network environment by monitoring the evolving cybersecurity landscape and taking appropriate actions." [GN] FCA US: Featherstone Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Delores Featherstone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-10362-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., Feb. 10, 2023), to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and FCA's other hourly employees were eligible for, and regularly received, various routine and non-discretionary bonuses in addition to their base hourly rate and any shift premiums. However, the Defendant failed to take its shift premiums and non-discretionary bonuses into consideration when calculating its hourly employees' regular rate of pay and resulting overtime rate premium. As a result, the Defendant did not pay the proper overtime rate under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current employee of FCA US, LLC since September 2020. FCA is the eighth-largest automaker in the world based on total annual vehicle sales.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com FIRST MANAGEMENT: Happ Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Katelyn Happ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00078-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 10, 2023), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and attendant regulations as well as the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), to seek declaratory relief and unpaid straight-time wages and overtime, liquidated damages, fees and costs, and any other remedies. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked as dispatchers and mechanics regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but did not receive overtime compensation for all such hours due to Defendant's common unlawful policies that violate the FLSA, PMWA, and WCPL, including causing hourly-paid employees to report fewer hours on their timesheets than they actually worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dispatcher from February 2018 to February 2022, and worked in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. The Defendant's business includes providing CDL-licensed drivers to perform both school bus and charter transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Robert E. DeRose (OH Bar No. 0055214) Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Navarro Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA NAVARRO, BENJAMIN KOMITA, JADEN KREKOW, KYLE STEWART, MASON YASKOVIC and THOMAS FRANCIS, Plaintiffs v. FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-1950-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla.), Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Florida Institute of Technology ("FIT") is a private research university in Melbourne, Florida that receives federal financial assistance. In June 2022, FIT announced that it would discontinue five varsity sports programs, including men's rowing, and transition each to club-level. In October 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, alleging three violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681. The Plaintiffs are six students at FIT and former members of its defunct men's rowing team, who bring the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of themselves and on behalf of "a class or classes consisting of all present and future FIT male undergraduate students -- including currently enrolled students and prospective students -- who have sought, who seek, or who will seek to obtain the benefits of intercollegiate athletics sponsored by FIT by participating in such." The Court has not yet determined whether to certify the action as a class action, thus at this stage, the Plaintiffs proceed only as individual litigants. The Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction immediately reinstating the men's rowing team at FIT until the case can be heard on the merits. Judge Mendoza states that the first prerequisite for obtaining a preliminary injunction -- substantial likelihood of success on the merits -- is generally the most important. In the case, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that they were discriminated by FIT's failure to provide equal athletic participation opportunities. The Plaintiffs allege that in reviewing the data, FIT has fallen short, or had a significant participation gap of male athletes, for 16 of the last 18 years. In response, FIT argues that the Plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits because when full-time undergraduates attending its online-only division are included, along with esport student-athletes that meet the definition of a Title IX participant, FIT's application of the framework in the 2021-2022 academic year led to a Participation Gap of three male students, or .16%. Judge Mendoza cannot hold that FIT's esports program provides genuine participation opportunities under Title IX. And, by FIT's own calculations, when its esports program is not considered for Title IX purposes, FIT is not in compliance with Title IX's requirements. Therefore, at this stage, the Court need not determine whether FIT's online-only students should be considered. The Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on their Title IX claim. The Plaintiffs must also establish that they will suffer irreparable injury absent issuance of an injunction. The Plaintiffs argue that they will suffer irreparable harm by losing any opportunity to participate in their chosen intercollegiate sport and continuing that sport on greater competitive stages. FIT argues that the Plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief undercuts their claim of irreparable harm. It argues that the Plaintiffs face no irreparable harm because they did not lose their scholarships and all are free to transfer to other colleges. Judge Mendoza finds that the Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and they presented substantial evidence of irreparable harm. FIT gives insufficient consideration to the unique circumstances college athletes face, making short shrift of the brief time-span in which they are permitted to compete. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the irreparable injury prong. Next, the Court must balance the harms faced by the Plaintiffs and FIT. The Plaintiffs argue that at most, FIT's harm would be the expenditure of funds, which is the exact counter to the definition of an irreparable injury. FIT argues that immediately reinstating the men's rowing team to its varsity level would inflict significant harm on it. Be that as it may, Judge Mendoza determines that the harm associated with a Title IX violation is serious and "financial concerns alone cannot justify gender discrimination." Therefore, he is unsympathetic to FIT's claims that it will be unduly harmed by the expenditure of funds necessary to level the playing field. In short, the balance of harm favors the Plaintiffs. Finally, Judge Mendoza considers the public's interest. The public has a compelling interest in eradicating gender discrimination and promoting compliance with Title IX. Especially because the Plaintiffs established a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their Title IX claim, the public's interest weighs in favor of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, they have sufficiently satisfied the fourth and final prong for obtaining a preliminary injunction. Having satisfied all four prerequisites, Judge Mendoza grants the Plaintiffs' request for an injunction. The Plaintiffs seek excusal from the bond requirement since they are young student athletes with limited resources. Because the lawsuit is a form of public interest litigation, Judge Mendoza exercises discretion and elects to require no security at all. The Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of clearly establishing that they are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief temporarily reinstating the men's rowing team. The award of individual relief to private litigants who have brought their own suit is not only sensible but is also fully consistent with -- and in some cases even necessary to -- the orderly enforcement of Title IX. FIT's violation of Title IX in these circumstances has resulted in particularized irreparable harm to these specific Plaintiffs, so Judge Mendoza exercises his broad discretion to protect against irreparable injury and preserve the status quo until the Court renders a meaningful decision on the merits. In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Mendoza grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. He orders FIT to: a. as soon as possible reinstate the men's rowing team to its varsity intercollegiate status; b. on March 12, 2023, provide the men's rowing team with full funding, staffing, and other benefits commensurate with its status as a varsity-level intercollegiate team. c. If there are compelling reasons that FIT is unable to comply with the March 12, 2023 deadline despite due diligence, it must notify the Court in writing on March 3, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. The Court preliminarily enjoins FIT: a. from taking any action in furtherance of eliminating the men's rowing team or any men's intercollegiate athletic team at the institution pending a full trial on the merits or until the Court orders otherwise; b. from retaliating against the Plaintiffs in any manner for asserting their legal rights in the case. No bond is required. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxmyzw9 from Leagle.com. FLORIDA: Summary Judgment Bid in Howard v. FCOR Commissioners OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT EARL HOWARD, DAMON PETERSON, CARL TRACY BROWN and WILLIE WATTS, Plaintiffs v. MELINDA N. COONROD, RICHARD D. DAVISON and DAVID A. WYANT, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-62-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), Judge Paul G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division: a. grants Commissioner Defendants Melinda N. Coonrod, Richard D. Davison, and David A. Wyant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and b. denies the Named Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. The class action dispute stems from a constitutional challenge to Florida's parole procedures for juveniles sentenced for life, or a sentence tantamount to life, with the possibility of parole. The Named Plaintiffs -- along with about 170 other individuals -- are incarcerated in the state of Florida, serving life sentences with the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18 years old. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that those juveniles who commit crimes when they are under 18 be sentenced by someone with discretion to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and that states affirmatively afford juveniles serving life sentences a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." In response to this line of Supreme Court cases, Florida adopted in 2014 new sentencing procedures for juvenile offenders serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. The 2014 Juvenile Sentencing Statute requires an individualized sentencing hearing to consider the offense committed along with the defendant's youth before imposing a life sentence. The Named Plaintiffs allege, however, that Florida has not yet fully remediated its parole review procedures to comply with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In particular, they allege that the juveniles serving life with parole sentences are not being afforded the right to meaningful opportunity for release now required by the Constitution. Instead, the Named Plaintiffs allege that juveniles sentenced to life with parole may only be released in accordance with the limited process set forth in Florida's parole statutes which is administered by the Florida Commission on Offender Review ("FCOR") and is virtually identical for adult and juvenile offenders. Thus, the Named Plaintiffs allege that Florida's parole system directly contradicts the mandates of the U.S. Supreme Court cases that establish that juvenile lifers have a constitutional right to be released from prison upon demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation. Consequently, the Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a five-count Complaint against the FCOR Commissioner Defendants in their official capacity. The Defendants serve as Commissioners of the FCOR: Melinda N. Coonrod as Chair, Richard D. Davison as Vice Chair, and David A. Wyant as Secretary. But the Court dismissed the Equal Protection and Sixth Amendment counts for failure to state a claim. The case proceeds on an Eighth Amendment claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a Procedural Due Process Fourteenth Amendment claim pursuant to Section 1983, and a declaratory judgment claim. The Court later certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class defined as follows: All persons who (i) were convicted of a crime committed when they were under the age of eighteen; (ii) were sentenced to life in prison or a term of years exceeding their life expectancy (defined as greater than 470 months); (iii) are currently in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections; (iv) have never been paroled; and (v) are or will become eligible for release to parole supervision but only through the parole process. After discovery, both the Plaintiffs and the Commissioner Defendants submitted motions for summary judgment, response briefs in opposition, and corresponding replies in support. Consequently, the matter is ripe for review. After a thorough review of the record, Judge Byron agrees with both parties that no dispute of material fact remains and the issues in the case are now legal issues for the Court to decide. Under this record, he holds the undisputed evidence demonstrates Florida's parole procedures as enacted through the practices and policies of the FCOR by the Commissioner Defendants are adequate under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. As laid out in the findings of fact, the FCOR's parole procedures provide the Class Members a meaningful opportunity for release based on a consideration of demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. Judge Byron opines that while the national mood may be shifting away from a heavily punitive approach to criminal justice, the Court's role is not to concretize this mood into law. To do so would usurp the Florida legislature's duty to set criminal and penological policy for the state and bypass individualized remedies available to individualized Class Members. Instead, the Court must ensure that Florida's parole system as enacted by the FCOR meets the irreducible constitutional floor. With respect to the Class, it has done so. Accordingly, the Commissioner Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Named Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner Defendants and against the Plaintiffs and to thereafter terminate any pending motions and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rmwmxt6 from Leagle.com. FROST-BURNE: Langley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Langley and Victoria Ray, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FROST-BURNE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-05031-TLB (W.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Plaintiffs were not paid for the work they were required to complete off-the-clock. As a result of the hours spent completing work assigned by the Defendant at home while off the clock, the Plaintiffs were not paid a lawful overtime wage for all hours worked in a workweek. The pay practices that violate the FLSA and AMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed at the Defendant's Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurant in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Frost-Burne, LLC is a franchise owner of Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Stewart Whaley, Esq. WHLAW | WE HELP Riverfront PL – Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@wh.law stewart@wh.law GIVE-R LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Give-r LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Give-r LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01590 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Give-r LLC -- https://www.give-r.com/ -- offers the best performance wear, outerwear, leather gloves, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GODLOVE ENTERPRISES: Flindt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Godlove Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Savanna Flindt, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Godlove Enterprises, Inc., Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2023-00335292-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil." Godlove Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.godloveent.com/ -- offers you expertise in all the following areas: septic systems cleaned and repaired, inspections for real estate transfer and mortgage refinance, state certified drinking water testing, drain and tile cleaning, non-invasive leach bed rejuvenation, sewer line cleaning root cutters, water jet, sink drain cleaning, restaurant grease trap maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com HARD ROCK: Cuesta Sues Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------- Carlos Cuesta, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC. D/B/A HARD ROCK CAFE, Case 1:23-cv-20350-DPG (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property. The Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the respective business, located Miami, Florida (hereinafter the "Commercial Property"). The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at Defendant's Commercial Property, and the business located within the Commercial Property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial Property, and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., owned and operated a commercial restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 S.W. 74th Court Miami, FL 33155 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 Primary Email: ajperez@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: bvirues@lawgmp.com dramos@lawgmp.com HMSHOST CORPORATION: Woodell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotie Woodell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HMSHOST CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00110-LPR (E.D. Ark., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid tipped employees in Arkansas regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Defendant pays its bartenders and servers less than the statutory minimum wage. Instead of paying the required minimum wage, Defendant takes advantage of the tip credit allowed by the FLSA. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same tip credit minimum wage for both tipped work and non-tipped work. As a result of the policies put in place by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was often required to perform non-tipped work for less than minimum wage. The Plaintiff is entitled to wages and compensation based on the standard minimum wage for all hours spent on non-tipped work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid tipped employee. HMSHost Corporation is a staffing provider for roadside and airport food service companies throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Stewart Whaley, Esq. WHLAW | WE HELP Riverfront PL – Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@wh.law stewart@wh.law INOTIV INC: Bid to Consolidate Grobler and Burkhart Suits Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SERGIO GROBLER, derivatively on Behalf of INOTIV, INC., Plaintiff v. ROBERT W. LEASURE; BETH A. TAYLOR; GREGORY C. DAVIS; R. MATTHEW NEFF; RICHARD A. JOHNSON; JOHN E. SAGARTZ; NIGEL BROWN; and SCOTT CRAGG, Defendants, and INOTIV, INC., Nominal Defendant. WILLIAM NOBLE BURKHART, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant INOTIV, INC., Plaintiff v. ROBERT W. LEASURE; BETH A. TAYLOR; GREGORY C. DAVIS; R. MATTHEW NEFF; RICHARD A. JOHNSON; JOHN E. SAGARTZ; NIGEL BROWN; and SCOTT CRAGG, Defendants, and INOTIV, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00003-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, denies without prejudice the Joint Motion Consolidating Actions And Appointing Co-Lead Counsel, filed in the Grobler Derivative Action. The Opinion and Order is entered in the following shareholder derivative actions: (1) Grobler v. Leasure, Case No. 4:22-cv-00064-PPS-JPK (the Grobler Derivative Action); and (2) Burkhart v. Leasure, Case No. 4:23-cv-00003-PPS-JPK (the Burkhart Derivative Action). The Grobler Derivative Action was filed by Plaintiff Sergio Grobler derivatively on behalf of Inotiv, Inc., on Sept. 9, 2022. The Burkhart Derivative Action was filed by Plaintiff William Noble Burkhart derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Inotiv, Inc., on Jan. 4, 2023. The Defendants in both suits are the same: Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, Gregory C. Davis, R. Matthew Neff, Richard A. Johnson, John E. Sagartz, Nigel Brown, and Scott Cragg (collectively the Individual Defendants), and Nominal Defendant Inotiv, Inc. The Grobler Derivative Action is currently stayed pursuant to an agreement of the parties. The Court temporarily lifts the stay for purposes of the Opinion and Order and the related filings of the parties. Currently before the Court is the Joint Motion Consolidating Actions And Appointing Co-Lead Counsel, filed in the Grobler Derivative Action by all parties to both actions. Plaintiffs Grobler and Burkhart also jointly filed in both cases a "Notice of Non-Opposition To The Joint Motion Consolidating Actions And Appointing Co-Lead Counsel." On June 23, 2022, Grobler filed a "Class Action Complaint For Violations of Securities Laws" on behalf of a putative class of investors defined as all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between Sept. 21, 2021 and June 13, 2022. The Securities Class Action complaint sought to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act allegedly caused by Inotiv's CEO, President, and Director, Robert W. Leasure, and its CFO and Vice President of Finance, Beth A. Taylor. The complaint alleged that Leasure and Taylor made various false or misleading statements or omissions concerning Inotiv's business, operations, and prospects, in connection with the Company's acquisition of Envigo RMS, LLC, and the "widespread and flagrant" violations of the Animal Welfare Act that were later discovered at its Cumberland, Virginia facility. Leasure's and Taylor's statements or omissions allegedly caused investors who purchased Inotiv securities in the relevant time period to suffer damages when the true details about the Cumberland facility emerged in the market, triggering a diminution in the value of the Company's publicly traded shares. On the same day the Securities Class Action complaint was filed, Grobler's counsel issued an early notice pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Publication of the required notice alerted other members of the putative class to the opportunity to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the litigation. On Aug. 22, 2022, Grobler and four other interested parties filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their proposed class counsel. Based on a statutory presumption that the party that has the largest financial interest should be appointed lead plaintiff in a securities class action, District Court Judge Philip P. Simon, who is currently presiding over all three related matters, entered an order on Sept. 12, 2022 granting the motion of the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action and its counsel to serve as liaison counsel for the purported class, and denying the competing motions as moot. On Sept. 9, 2022, Grobler filed the complaint in the Grobler Derivative Action. Grobler's complaint alleges shareholder derivative claims on behalf of Inotiv (First through Fourth Claims), including breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets, against the Individual Defendants, who are corporate officers and directors of Inotiv. See Grobler Derivative Action, Dkt. #1. In addition, the complaint includes one count (Fifth Claim) in which Grobler alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a)(1) and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9. The complaint alleges federal court jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. As an alternative basis for jurisdiction, the complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction over the Fifth Claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the First through Fourth Claims. On Nov. 4, 2022, the counsel for Grobler, together with the counsel for Inotiv and the Individual Defendants, filed a joint motion in the Grobler Derivative Action requesting that the Court stay the action pending a ruling on an anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. The Court entered an order staying the Grobler Derivative Action on Nov. 15, 2022. On Jan. 4, 2023, Burkhart filed a separate derivative action on behalf of Inotiv raising allegations similar to those made in the Grobler Derivative Action. Count I of Burkhart's complaint alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Count II of the complaint alleges a claim for contribution or indemnification against Defendants Leasure and Taylor for damages the Company may become liable to pay for violating Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. And Count III of the complaint, like the Fifth Claim in Grobler's derivative complaint, alleges a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a)(1) and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9. Unlike Grobler, Burkhart does not allege federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Instead, the only basis for federal jurisdiction alleged in the Burkhart Derivative Action is federal question jurisdiction over the Section 14(a)/Rule 14a-9 violation alleged in Count III and supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and II. On Jan. 12, 2022, the parties filed the Motion to Consolidate/Appoint Lead Counsel presently under consideration. The Motion requests that the stay of proceedings in the Grobler Derivative Action be temporarily lifted for the limited purpose of the filing of and ruling on the Motion, and that the Court enters an order consolidating the Grobler and Burkhart Derivative Actions for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial, and appeal. The Motion also requests that the Court appoints the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action and that Williams & Piatt, LLC be appointed to serve as liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. While the Defendants join in the Motion's request for consolidation, they take no position on its request for appointment of co-lead counsel and/or liaison counsel. Judge Kolar opines that Burkhart does not allege diversity jurisdiction exists over his complaint, while Grobler does. It might make sense to consolidate for hearing and resolution the issue whether Burkhart and Grobler have stated a viable derivative claim for violation of Rule 14a-9. But that question can be decided when and if the Defendants raise the viability issue by filing a motion to dismiss. In addition, Grobler's allegations of diversity are currently in question. If it turns out that he, like Burkhart, is also dependent on the viability of his Rule 14a-9 claim for federal court jurisdiction, then consolidation of the two cases can be addressed at that time as well. In addition, setting aside whether legal fees, closures, and other expenditures, which are only anticipated and have not yet occurred, are sufficient to state a present injury to the corporation, Grobler's complaint does not sufficiently identify the injuries for which the complaint seeks to recover together with a plausible monetary amount associated with those injuries. Accordingly, if Grobler intends to rely on diversity as the basis for federal court jurisdiction, he must supplement his allegations regarding the nature of the injuries suffered by Inotiv and provide some quantification of those injuries sufficient to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy pleading requirement. Finally, given his opinion regarding uncertainties over the Court's jurisdiction, Judge Kolar says it is premature to make any decision regarding the appointment of lead counsel. The stay in the Grobler Derivative Action will be reinstated, and a stay may be entered in the Burkhart Derivative Action upon the filing of a joint motion to stay similar to the one filed in the Grobler Derivative Action. He says the propriety of consolidation and appointment of lead counsel will be addressed upon the lifting of the stay and after the jurisdictional basis of both derivative lawsuits are sufficiently pled and/or resolved. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kolar orders as follows: 1. In Grobler v. Leasure, Case No. 4:22-cv-00064-PPS-JPK: a. The stay entered on Nov. 15, 2022 is lifted for purposes of the instant Order and related party filings. b. The Joint Motion Consolidating Actions And Appointing Co-Lead Counsel is denied without prejudice. c. The case is stayed on the same terms set forth in the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 order. 2. In Burkhart v. Leasure, Case No. 4:23-cv-00003-PPS-JPK: a. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the filing of a motion to stay. b. After meeting and conferring, the parties will either file an agreed motion to stay or request a telephonic status conference if they are unable to reach agreement regarding the stay. The Clerk is directed to enter the Opinion and Order in both actions. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/26f9kty2 from Leagle.com. INSTANT BRANDS: Zachary Sues to Recover Wage Payments ----------------------------------------------------- Amber Zachary and Tova Zachary, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. INSTANT BRANDS LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00730 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed at any time by the Defendant. The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis. The Plaintiffs were compensated every other week, rather than weekly, by Defendant throughout the entirety of their employment. Thus, for the first half of each bi-weekly pay period, they were injured in that they were temporarily deprived of money owed to them, and they could not save, invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully theirs. Accordingly, every day that said money was not paid to them in a timely fashion, they lost the time value of that money., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant at its Central Valley, New York. INSTANT BRANDS LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 J.L. HUFFORD COFFEE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.L. Hufford Coffee & Tea Company. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. J.L. Hufford Coffee & Tea Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01601 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J.L. Hufford Coffee & Tea Company -- https://www.jlhufford.com/ -- offers coffee and cafe accessories including espresso machines, commercial blenders, drink mixes, and over 150 flavors of coffee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JACK HULLAND: Yukon Govt. Files Defence in Proposed Class-Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jackie Hong at CBC News reports that the Yukon government has responded to a proposed class-action lawsuit over the alleged improper use of holds and seclusion on students at Jack Hulland Elementary School in Whitehorse over the span of 20 years. In a statement of defence filed to the Yukon Supreme Court, the government denies a number of allegations such as school staff being assigned to a team that could be called to place children in holds - where adults use their bodies to restrict a child's movement - or to "drag" children to "isolation" spaces. It also says the action isn't "suitable" to be certified as a class-action or representative proceeding. However, the statement acknowledges there were occasions when students were placed in rooms or spaces they couldn't leave without the help of staff, and that the "restriction on their freedom of movement could, in many of these instances, properly be characterized as involuntary." The statement of defence comes about four months after the parents of two former Jack Hulland students took the territorial Department of Education and the school council to court, with the intent of representing all Jack Hulland students subjected to holds and seclusion between Jan. 1, 2002 and June 30, 2022. Their lawsuit alleges school staff would routinely place students as young as kindergarten in holds or confine them alone in rooms or small cubicles in response to the children having emotional outbursts or other difficulties. That kind of response was unnecessary and harmed already-vulnerable kids, the lawsuit claims, but had been normalized at the school. Affidavits filed in support of the plaintiffs' application to have the lawsuit certified as a class action contained further detailed allegations about the alleged treatment experienced by some students and its impact on their wellbeing. In one case, a former student alleged staff smeared butter on the dividers separating isolation spaces after she tried to climb them, and that her experience at Jack Hulland led to her feeling suicidal by Grade 5 and caused her to drop out of school by Grade 9. Separately, the CBC spoke to three parents and a former staff member who recounted seeing children being placed in holds or locked alone in a room called the "study hall" when they were having tantrums or minor behavioural difficulties but were not physical threats. All four said that, in their opinion, the children just needed someone to help them calm down and the alleged treatment only made the situations, both in the moment and long-term, worse. The Jack Hulland school council, to date, has not filed a separate statement of defence. The lawsuit, which has not yet been certified as a class action, also has yet to be tested at trial. Lawsuit can go ahead but not as class-action, government argues The Yukon government, in its four-page statement of defence, goes on to refute large portions of the lawsuit, from the existence of "forcible confinement policies" and the claim that behavioural expectations for students were unreasonable to allegations that staff, on occasion, would allegedly keep students in holds for hours. It also denies that staff did not properly inform parents when their children were allegedly placed in holds or seclusion and that the school council, not the education department, was responsible for school operations. As well, the document takes aim at the "pejorative connotations of the emotive language used" in the lawsuit - such as "seclusion," "isolation cells," "confinement" and "imprisonment" - to describe what the government says were actually "small rooms" built to "provide quiet spaces where students could be away from the stimulus of a group and regain their composure or ability to regulate their emotional responses." The government, though, does acknowledge that some students "were placed in one of these rooms more than once," including "over a lunch or recess period," and that there were occasions when students couldn't leave "except with the permission or assistance of Staff." It also says that if any staff at Jack Hulland had used force on a student or restrained or confined a student "in a manner that was excessive or unnecessary" for preventing harm, damage to property or disruptions to school operations, it would be an "actionable wrong" the government would be vicariously liable for. However, the statement of defence says whether those wrongs actually occurred, and if any of them constituted corporal punishment, can only be properly determined "in relation to the full factual context of that particular instance." The Yukon government is asking that the action proceed but not as a class action or representative proceeding, and that if the allegations made by the plaintiffs aren't proven, that the case be dismissed with legal costs awarded to the government. [GN] JAMES AVERY CRAFTSMAN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Avery Craftsman, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. James Avery Craftsman, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01609 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. James Avery -- https://www.jamesavery.com/ -- is a private company that designs, manufactures, and sells jewelry, primarily Christian themed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com KIDS CABANA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Friend Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN FRIEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIDS CABANA LEARNING CENTER OF VOLUSIA COUNTY LLC; and MICHELLE BONDI, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00360 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Friend was employed by the Defendant as teacher assistant. KIDS CABANA LEARNING CENTER OF VOLUSIA COUNTY LLC is a daycare and learning center providing care and education programs for children starting six weeks old up to five years. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com KIMONS MOVING: Jiminian Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Jiminian, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KIMONS MOVING INC. (D/B/A THE VELVET TOUCH), KIMON THERMOS, BARBARA THERMOS, AND MILDRED SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01171 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a driver and mover at the moving and storage company. The Defendants own, operate, or control a moving and storage company, which maintains its principal office located in Bronx, New York under the name "The Velvet Touch."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 KOKET LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koket, LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Koket, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01606 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Koket, LLC -- https://www.bykoket.com/ -- entertain in haute style with the Merveille Dining Chairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com LAKULESH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dukes Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON J. DUKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKULESH INC, d/b/a BAYMONT BY WYNDHAM MIDWAY/TALLAHASSEE; and PRATIKKUMAR PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00087-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Dukes was employed by the Defendants as housekeeper. LAKULESH INC, d/b/a BAYMONT BY WYNDHAM MIDWAY/TALLAHASSE, operates a hotel located in Midway, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LATINO BITES: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edixon Alejandro Benitez Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LATINO BITES 2 LLC and JOHN BEDOYA, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-00829 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages and seek compensatory damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Federal and New York State labor laws arising out of the Defendant failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wage. Although, the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 64 hours or more hours each week from August 2020 until December 2020; 55 hours or more hours each week from January 2021 until December 2021 and 54 hours per week from January 2022 until February 2022, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a food preparer, cleaner and delivery person while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. LATINO BITES 2 LLC, is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 LENCHO OILFIELD: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Chavez and Edgard Moneyhun, individually and for others similarly situated v. LENCHO OILFIELD SERVICES INCORPORATED and LAWRENCE DECULIT, III, Case No. 5:23-cv-00181 (W.D. La., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week. For such overtime hours, the Defendants calculated the Plaintiffs' overtime pay using only their hourly rate. The Defendants described the per diem as "Nontaxable Per Diem" on the Plaintiffs' Payroll Details Report. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated Solids Control Technicians were not required to track, document or otherwise provide proof of their daily living expenses in order to receive their per diem. The Defendants' per diem payments were not a reasonable approximation of costs incurred by the Plaintiffs for traveling and staying away from home but was instead a scheme to avoid paying overtime by excluding per diem from the Plaintiffs' regular rates of pay for calculating overtime pay. The amount of taxable hourly pay paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs does not represent and is less than the prevailing wage for similarly skilled workers. The Defendants intentionally paid hourly wages grossly below the average rate to avoid overtime wage obligations for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Solids Control Technicians and were paid an hourly rate and per diem. The Defendants provide solids control services to the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com - and - Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM, LLP 2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Phone: (713) 223-8855 Email: ttran@tranlawllp.com service@tranlawllp.com LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lavaris Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lineage Logistics, LLC and Great Lakes Cold Storage, Case No. 2:23-cv-10485-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMWFSA"), for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff all earned minimum and overtime wages. Under the FLSA and OMWFSA, employers must pay all non-exempt employees an overtime wage premium of pay one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time they spend working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses, but the Defendant did not include these payments as part of Plaintiff's regular rates of pay for the purposes of paying overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a lift operator and order selector from August, 2018 through May 14, 2021. Lineage is a cold storage logistics company that focuses on temperature-controlled food transportation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza – Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com LOVE AND PEBBLE: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Love and Pebble, LLC. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Love and Pebble, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01598 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Love and Pebble, LLC -- https://loveandpebble.com/ -- offers natural skincare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com MARKS & CLERK: Motion to Dismiss Commission Fees' Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Maura O'Malley, writing for Global Legal Post, reports that IP firm Marks & Clerk has failed in its to bid to dismiss a claim that alleges it received secret commissions for referring clients to IP services provider CPA Global (now Clarivate). The firm had also argued that the plaintiff -- Commission Recovery Limited (CRL) -- could not act on behalf of others, but on 23 February at the England and Wales High Court Mr Justice Robin Knowles said the case should go ahead and found that CRL had successfully met the hurdle for representative claimants set out in the Supreme Court judgment in Lloyd v. Google in November 2021. CRL was formed by IP solicitor Peter Rouse to act on behalf of a number of clients of Marks & Clerk. In the case Commission Recovery Limited v. Marks & Clerk LLP and Long Acre Renewals, Marks & Clerk was represented by John Machell KC and Russell Hopkins (instructed by Clifford Chance); the claimants were represented by Nico Leslie (instructed by Signature Litigation). Knowles ruled, after consideration of the parties' submissions and underlying law, that he would "allow the claimant to represent the class, and to do so on the 'opt out' basis proposed". The case will go ahead allowing any clients to opt out of the case if they wish. The judge noted that it is common for the holders of registered IP rights to have to pay renewal fees in the jurisdictions in which the rights are registered. The defendant Marks & Clerk does not provide any renewal services but it is alleged that it passed information about clients to CPA Global, which paid commission fees for any renewals to a firm called Long Acre Renewals; a partnership set up by current and former partners of Marks & Clerk. It is alleged that Marks & Clerk hid these commissions from its clients, breaching its fiduciary duty to its clients to act in their best interests. The judge noted: 'The defendants suggest that in some cases information may have been provided informally, but there is at present little evidence and one example to support this position." In bringing the claim, CRL pleaded the case based on that of another now dissolved company and former Marks & Clerk client Bambach Europe, arguing that its case was representative of other companies that had been impacted by Marks & Clerk's alleged actions under CPR 19.6. CPR 19.6 allows a representative action to be brought by, or against, one or more persons as representatives of any others who have the same interest in the claim, without the need to identify the represented parties. Marks & Clerk and Long Acre Renewals sought to argue that the potential claimants did not have the "same interest" under the test established in Lloyd v. Google and that the meaning of "client" is unclear in the context of the case. In analysing the defendant's arguments around "same interest", Mr Justice Knowles stated: "What matters is whether the ‘same interest' requirement is met, and in particular whether the points involve class members affected by an issue prejudicing the position of others. None do." Knowles concluded: "There is no absence of same interest." Knowles said in his judgment clients could opt out of the claim if they wish. He said he would consider "at the defendants' request, authorising a suitable form of communication from the court (sent by the defendants' solicitors as the court's officers) to all material clients advising them expressly that they may 'opt out''. Marks & Clerk also argued that the assignment from Bambach Europe to the claimant was an unlawful champertous assignment of a bare right to litigate. The judge, however believed: 'In these circumstances I am not prepared to strike out the claim as one based on an unlawful champertous assignment of a bare right to litigate.' Responding to the judgment, a Marks & Clerks spokesperson said: "The allegations in the claims mischaracterise the work Marks & Clerk undertakes and its relationship with CPA, and we strongly deny any wrongdoing. Marks & Clerk will be seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and intends to pursue its appeal vigorously." A spokesperson for Clarivate said: "Clarivate, who acquired CPA Global in 2020, categorically and emphatically denies any wrongdoing in our business. Neither Clarivate nor CPA Global are named as defendants in the legal action." In a finding of interest to litigation funders, Knowles ruled that claims under CPR 19.6 could see mechanisms put in place "to allow reasonable costs of the recovery achieved to be paid before disbursement to the members of the class". It is estimated that the commissions involved may total some tens of millions of pounds. Signature Litigation's Daniel Spendlove, lead partner for CRL, said: "This judgment is significant for the legal industry, providing greater clarity on the limits of England and Wales' representative action regime." [GN] MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Jeweltex Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeweltex Manufacturing Retirement Plan, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HOWELL M. ESTES, III, NICK S. CYPRUS, ROXANNE J. DECYK, JOANNE O. ISHAM, DANIEL L. JABLONSKY, C. ROBERT KEHLER, GILMAN LOUIE, L. ROGER MASON, JR., HEATHER A. WILSON, ERIC J. ZAHLER, and EDDY ZERVIGON, Case No. 5:23-cv-00873 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought by Plaintiff against Maxar Technologies, Inc. ("Maxar" or the "Company") and the members of Maxar's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Maxar will be acquired by funds advised by Advent International Corporation through their affiliates Galileo Parent, Inc. ("Parent") and Galileo Bidco, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction"). On December 16, 2022, Maxar issued a press release announcing entry into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 15, 2022 (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Maxar to Advent. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Maxar stockholder will receive $53.00 in cash for each share of Maxar common stock (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $6.4 billion. On January 31, 2023, Maxar filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Maxar stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: the Company's financial projections; the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("J.P. Morgan"); and the go-shop process. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of the Exchange Act. In short, unless remedied, Maxar's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Maxar. Maxar provides space solutions, and geospatial intelligence solutions in the United States, Asia, South America, Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Canada, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISS LAW 611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 310/208-2800 Facsimile: 310/209-2348 Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com MDL 2988: $3M Class Settlement in Cookware Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS, LLC, COOKWARE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions, MDL No. 2988, Master Case No. 21-mc-491-NR (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania: a. grants the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement; and b. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and service awards. For about the last 50 years, All-Clad has made some of the highest quality cookware on the market. According to its website, All-Clad's cookware (pots and pans) are "fully bonded," "handcrafted by skilled craftspeople using the finest materials and revolutionary bonding process," and deliver "superior performance and durability." Because of this, individual items, like a 1.5-quart stainless steel saucepan, go for about $200 in high-end stores like Williams Sonoma or Crate & Barrel. All-Clad's cookware consists for the most part of high-end products, and its consumers, it would seem, are willing to pay premium prices for these premium products. These consolidated class-action lawsuits stem not from the essential function or quality of All-Clad's cookware, but from what the Court views as an ancillary benefit. All-Clad marketed certain lines of its cookware as "dishwasher safe." But some of it wasn't; when put in the dishwasher, the bonded layers on the bottoms would come apart and create sharp edges. The Plaintiffs filed four class actions -- which have been consolidated into this MDL -- in response to this defect. They brought claims for breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and deceptive and unfair trade practices. After several rounds of mediation, the parties have settled their case. The settlement class members who are in current possession of the damaged cookware are entitled to select one of the three following options: A. Option A1. Settlement class members selecting this option will submit the damaged cookware to All-Clad. In exchange, they will receive replacement of the same type/style and apply for a $75 refund; B. Option A2. Settlement class members electing this option will submit the damaged cookware to All-Clad. In exchange, they will receive either (i) Hard Anodized (HA1) five-piece frypan set (SKU 2100122734) or (ii) Essentials Hard Anodized Nonstick thirteen-piece cookware set (SKU 2100120788); or C. Option A3. Settlement class members selecting this option will submit the damaged cookware to All-Clad. In exchange, they will apply for a future credit of 50% off purchases, up to $1,200, on All-Clad's website. For Option B, the settlement class members who no longer possess the damaged cookware, or who have the cookware but whose cookware has not yet manifested sharp edges, are entitled to submit a claim for a future purchase credit of 35% off purchases, up to $750, on any products on All-Clad's website. For Option A1, the class members who make a claim for Option A1 will receive a cash payment of $75. To fund these payments, All-Clad will establish a "settlement fund" of up to $3 million that will provide for the refunds available to the settlement class members who are in possession of the damaged cookware and elect to exchange the damaged cookware for a replacement and a $75 refund. If the amount of refund claims totals less than $3 million, All-Clad will create a fund in the actual amount of all such claims. If the amount of refund claims exceeds $3 million, it will add as much money as needed to pay such claims, up to an additional $1 million, for a total of $4 million. In addition, All-Clad affirmed that it completed packaging changes to remove "dishwasher safe" representations from all the cookware packaging and labeling and has also completed removal of "dishwasher safe" representations on the All-Clad website and any other promotional and marketing materials. It also notified its authorized retailers of the removal of the "dishwasher safe" representations and is actively working to instruct retailers to remove "dishwasher safe" representations from floor models and other marketing materials. The agreement contains a "clear sailing" provision; All-Clad has agreed not to oppose or assist any third party in opposing class counsel's request for up to $2 million in fees and costs. The parties represented to the Court that they negotiated this fee arrangement completely separately from the rest of the agreement. The Plaintiffs request a service award of $2,500 for each class representative. As part of the settlement agreement, the parties have created a thorough notice plan utilizing a variety of media. All-Clad is paying to notify the class members, and it is also paying for claims administration by its selected administrator, Angeion Group, LLC. Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement and the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and service awards. After granting preliminary approval on Aug. 25, 2022, the Court held a final approval or fairness hearing on Jan. 26, 2023. The settlement class consists of: All persons in the United States, including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, who, since January 1, 2015, have purchased All-Clad D3, D5, or LTD Cookware." Judge Ranjan certifies the class for purposes of settlement. He finds that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements are satisfied. He says (i) the class is clearly so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable; (ii) all claims turn on whether or not the cookware was defective, whether it was marketed as dishwasher safe, and whether All-Clad beached duties or otherwise acted improperly; (iii) the named Plaintiffs satisfy the typicality requirement because they suffered the same injury from identical conduct by All-Clad; they purchased the defective cookware marketed as dishwasher safe; (iv) the Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and (v) the class counsel have ample qualifications and experience to conduct the litigation and negotiate the settlement on behalf of class members. Turning to the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) (i.e., predominance and superiority), Judge Ranjan holds that the class satisfies the predominance requirement because a sufficient constellation of common issues binds class members together. Because of the vast number of customers who experienced such similar injuries, the class treatment is superior and will lead to increased "fairness and efficiency." Finally, the class is clearly ascertainable because the settlement class parameters present objective criteria, and the parties can -- and have -- identified members through detailed records. Judge Ranjan then finds that the settlement has several options for class members, but the main form of relief is for a class member to return a defective pot or pan for a brand new one (with free shipping) and get a check for $75. That option, he says, is more than fair. After all, if a Plaintiff pursued a claim for breach of warranty and won, they would likely only get the value of a new piece of cookware. Under this settlement, the class member is getting that full relief, plus a little bit of money. Judge Ranjan also goes through the many factors that the Court is obligated to apply in assessing the fairness of the settlement agreement. But in the end, he says, the reality is that obtaining a brand-new replacement product (with no shipping costs), in what he views as fundamentally a warranty case, is a fair settlement. This is particularly so where, as in the case, the defect at issue (not being dishwasher safe) doesn't relate to the core functionality of the product. Judge Ranjan must also consider the class counsel's motion for about $1.9 million in attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards for the named Plaintiffs. He uses a lodestar method to calculate the fees, and grants the motion, with modifications. Because he finds that one of the main benefits of the settlement is the replacement products to the class members, he also finds that it is critical to incentivize the class counsel to remain engaged in the claims process, including if there are disputes over claims or problems with the delivery of replacement products. As such, a portion of the fees will be held back (approximately $500,000), and authorized for payment only after the claims process is complete. Thus, he grants the motion, enhances the award of attorneys' fees by a multiplier of 1.35, and awards the class counsel fees of approximately $1.9 million. And, upon review of the submitted expenses, he finds that the submitted $59,805.56 in expenses is reasonable. Finally, Judge Ranjan sees no basis to award the named class representatives any service awards, and so he declines to do so. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ranjan certifies the settlement class and grants the motion to approve the settlement. He also grants in part the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and awards. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3psc6raw from Leagle.com. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Garnere Sues Over Unlawful Bi-Weekly Payment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Garnere, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, L.P., Case No. 7:23-cv-01592 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis. The NYLL which requires companies to pay their manual workers on a weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. The Defendant violated this law by paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff was paid every other week, rather than weekly, during the entirety of his employment with Defendant. Thus, for half of each biweekly pay period, Plaintiff was injured in that he was temporarily deprived of money owed to him, and he could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully his. The Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees on behalf of himself and a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by the Defendant in New York State over the last six years, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Loader/Selector from 2017 to 2019 at a Medline warehouse in Middletown, New York. The Defendant is the nation's largest privately held manufacturer and distributor of medical supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com MEREDITH CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Martin Class Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM J. MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEREDITH CORPORATION, MEREDITH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, DOTDASH MEDIA, INC., and DOTDASH MEREDITH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22cv4776 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Martin brings the action against the five corporations, alleging that the Defendants unlawfully disclosed information about his video viewing history to Facebook. Dotdash Meredith is one of the world's largest online media companies. It operates the popular news and media website www.people.com. Most of the content pages on People.com include a video, and some of them consist entirely of videos. When visitors access People.com, they have the option to create an account on the site as a "Registered User." Dotdash Meredith does not obtain Registered Users' consent to share their personally identifying information or their video viewing behavior with others. Nonetheless, Dotdash Meredith allegedly sends certain information about them to Facebook. Dotdash Meredith shares information with Facebook using software called the "Facebook Pixel." The Facebook Pixel allows Facebook to match a website visitor to a particular Facebook account. To install the Facebook Pixel on a website, the website operator starts by adding a publicly available base code created by Facebook (the "Base Pixel") to their website. The Base Pixel, as a default, sends Facebook the name of the webpage viewed by a website visitor, along with the visitor's "Facebook ID." The website operator can also customize the Base Pixel to track specific events, such as a visitor clicking an "add to cart" button, which enables the Facebook Pixel to send additional data to Facebook related to the customized events. Dotdash Meredith has installed the Facebook Pixel on People.com but "has not created any specific events, such as 'add to cart' or 'checkout' for additional tracking." Martin is an "active subscriber" of People.com who often watches videos on the website. He filed the action on June 7, 2022, asserting a claim against Dotdash Meredith under the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), 18 U.S.C. Section 2710, as well as claims against all five defendants under California Civil Code Section 1799.3; the California Online Privacy Protection Act ("OPPA"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 22575; the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; and New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 et seq. On August 17, the case was reassigned to the Court. On September 16, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion was fully submitted on November 30. The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) for lacks standing and 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. for failure to state a claim. Judge Cote finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged standing. Martin was allegedly harmed when his information was disclosed to a third party. This injury is fairly traceable to the Defendants' conduct and would be likely to be redressed if the Plaintiff prevailed. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's alleged injury is not an injury in fact because the information disclosed to Facebook does not include information protected by the VPPA. But, Judge Cote holds that whether the precise disclosure is actionable under the VPPA is a question about the merits of Martin's claim, rather than his ability to bring his case in federal court. Martin's allegations that the Defendants disclosed his private information to a third party without his consent are sufficient to confer standing. Judge Cote further finds that because the complaint shows that People.com does not disclose information identifying website visitors as having requested or obtained specific videos, it is unnecessary to reach other questions such as whether a Facebook ID "identifies a person" and whether People.com is a "video tape service provider." She dismisses the Plaintiff's VPPA claim. The Plaintiff's claim under California Civil Code Section 1799.3 is also dismissed because there is no indication in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in the business of "sales" or "rental" of video materials, Judge Cote holds. On the contrary, she says the complaint acknowledges that the Plaintiff has never paid for a People.com subscription. And, whether or not the Defendants receive a profit from advertisers or receive some sort of benefit by showing visitors advertisements does not bear on the relevant question, which is whether the Defendants rent or sell videos to users. Next, the Plaintiff's claim is brought under Section 22575, which is violated only if the website operator fails to post its policy within 30 days after being notified of noncompliance. In the complaint, Judge Cote finds no allegations suggesting that any Defendant was notified of its alleged noncompliance with this provision or failed to post a policy after being notified of noncompliance. Thus, the Plaintiff has not plausibly pled a violation of the OPPA, and the claim is dismissed. Finally, merely labeling the conduct a "scheme" in an opposition brief does not plead how the relevant actions were likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances, as required for a GBL claim. Accordingly, Judge Cote dismisses the Plaintiff's claim under the GBL. For these reasons, Judge Cote grants the Defendants' September 16 motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment for the Defendants and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4j7zfwv7 from Leagle.com. Eric M. George -- egeorge@egcfirm.com -- Carl A. Roth -- croth@egcfirm.com -- Ryan Q. Keech -- rkeech@egcfirm.com -- Stefan Bogdanovich -- sbogdanovich@egcfirm.com -- Ellis George Cipollone O'Brien Annaguey LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Brett D. Katz -- bkatz@egcfirm.com -- Ellis George Cipollone O'Brien Annaguey LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff William J. Martin. Tiana Demas -- tdemas@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, New York, NY, David E. Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -- Alexander J. Kasner -- akasner@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Washington, DC, Kyle C. Wong -- kwong@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants Meredith Corporation, Meredith Holdings Corporation, IAC/InterActiveCorp, Dotdash Media, Inc., and Dotdash Meredith, Inc. META PLATFORMS: CAT Halts Progress of Competition Law Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Davis of Pinsent Masons disclosed that the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has paused the progress of a class action against Facebook's parent company, Meta, amid concerns over the validity of the methodology used to calculate potential damages. In a judgment (46 pages / 504KB PDF) handed down on 20 February 2023, the CAT declined to grant a collective proceedings order (CPO) to Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, who launched a standalone opt-out collective damages claim against the company last year for Meta's alleged abuse of dominance in breach of competition law. Gormsen, who is the prospective class representative for the action, is seeking damages of approximately £2.3 billion plus interest on behalf of approximately 45 million UK consumers. Gormsen alleges that Meta abused its dominance by imposing complex and far-reaching terms of business on Facebook users, giving rise to three separate infringements. According to Gormsen, the company placed an "unfair data requirement" on Facebook users to provide personal data before giving them access to the social network's services. Gormsen also raised an "unfair price" claim against Meta, alleging that users were not paid for the company's access to, or use of, their valuable personal data despite Meta monetising that data to sell targeted advertising. In addition, she claims that the terms and conditions covering how users' personal data is used and shared by Meta are complex, misleading, and imposed on a ‘take it or leave it' basis - and represent "unfair trading conditions". But the CAT criticised the methodology proposed by Gormsen's economic expert for calculating potential damages said to arise from the alleged competition law breaches. It found that the methodology did not cover each of the three alleged abuses, where each required a separate counterfactual analysis to form the basis for a damages assessment. In the CAT's view, the proposed methodology dealt solely, and inadequately, with Gormsen's unfair pricing claim. Handing down the court's judgment, Sir Marcus Smith criticised the lack of clarity about the "nexus" between the alleged legal breach, how the counterfactual is framed, and the method of quantifying the resulting loss. He also noted the proposed methodology had changed significantly in response to criticism by Meta's own economic expert. The court said the usual test for determining unfair pricing under competition law would need adjustment when applied to digital platform services to account for "special factors". Firstly, no monetary price exists for users - their personal data is ‘bartered' for access to Meta's services. Secondly, the court said that, because the market is two-sided - with Facebook's services provided to users in exchange for their personal data, which then facilitates the targeted digital advertising services provided to businesses - any assessment must consider interaction between both markets, and whether Meta is dominant in each. The CAT also expressed doubt over how Gormsen's unfair data requirement and unfair trading conditions claims, as currently pleaded, could be articulated as abuses of a dominant position in breach of competition law. Sir Marcus Smith said it was difficult to see how the counterfactuals for these two claims could be linked with the proposed methodology for assessing damages. He went on to question how - as suggested by Gormsen - Meta's alleged excessive profits could relate to loss allegedly suffered by users under the unfair data requirement claim. The judgment also noted that it would be "extraordinarily difficult" to establish the other unfair trading conditions claim as an abuse of dominance. Sir Marcus Smith suggested that the claim would be more suitable for a consumer protection law claim, which the CAT does not have jurisdiction over. The court stopped short of rejecting Gormsen's application altogether, instead granting six months to improve the proposed methodology so that the CAT can be satisfied that the claim has a suitable "blueprint to trial". The decision marks the first time since the landmark Merricks ruling that the CAT has almost refused to certify a CPO application in a consumer-focused competition mass action. If Gormsen does not provide a satisfactory revised methodology within the six-month timeframe, the CAT will dismiss the claim. Gormsen can make a reasoned application to extend the timeframe, but Meta could contest this. Gormsen could also seek to appeal the CAT ruling or, alternatively, abandon the claim altogether. [GN] MH/1993/FOODS INC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MH/1993/Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MH/1993/Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01599 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MH/1993/Foods, Inc. doing business as Michele Foods -- https://michelefoods.com/ -- is a Food Production company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com MOLESKINE AMERICA: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moleskine America, Inc. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Moleskine America, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01516 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moleskine America, Inc. -- https://www.moleskine.com/en-us/ -- offers a collections from notebooks and planners to backpacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MONTREAL, QC: Agrees to Settle Protest Class Action for $6 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Serebrin, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the City of Montreal has agreed to pay $6 million and apologize to protesters who say their rights were violated when they were arrested during demonstrations against various causes, including rising university tuition fees and police brutality. A judge authorized the global settlement, which will end 16 class-action lawsuits against the city. An estimated 3,119 people who were encircled by police during various protests between 2012 and 2015 and arrested or detained will each be eligible for around $1,500. Montreal has also agreed to publish an apology to the protesters on its official website and keep it there for 90 days. The wording of the apology says the city acknowledges "certain acts taken by police forces and the municipal administration towards participants in the protests covered by these class actions violated some of their fundamental rights, causing them harm." "For this reason, the City of Montreal is publicly apologizing to all of these individuals." The 16 lawsuits were settled in three groups, with the final class actions settled in November. The global arrangement and the total compensation awarded by the city required judicial approval. Between 2012 and 2015, Montreal was home to scores of protests, many of them tied to the provincial government's plan to raise university tuition fees -- a decision that was reversed when the Parti Quebecois beat the Liberals in the 2012 election. During the so-called "Maple Spring" protests of 2012, thousands of students took to the streets in Montreal against tuition fee increases, and some demonstrations turned violent, with protesters damaging public and private property. In reaction, city police often used a tactic called "kettling," in which police surrounded protesters and arrested them en masse. All the lawsuits claimed that police kettled the plaintiffs -- often without warning or orders to disperse -- and prevented them from leaving police custody, sometimes for hours. The lawsuits involve several demonstrations that were part of the 2012 protests, as well as others marking anniversaries related to those protests. Other demonstrations tied to the lawsuits include protests against police brutality and the Formula One race. Plaintiffs claimed that the indiscriminate mass detentions and the many arrests that followed were illegal and prevented citizens from exercising their fundamental rights. In some of the 16 class actions, only protesters who were ticketed are eligible for compensation, while in other lawsuits all protesters who were detained are eligible. In his decision authorizing the settlement, Justice Martin Sheehan wrote that the length of time it would have taken for the cases to be tried, as well as the time that had passed since the events, favoured the approval of the settlement. As well, court decisions would have likely been appealed, which would have further delayed compensation for class members, he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 1, 2023.[GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Wins Right to Take Suit to Fed. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Leonard at nydailynews.com reports that a U.S. District court judge ruled that Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores can take his discrimination cases against the NFL, Giants, Denver Broncos and Houston Texans to an open federal court in front of a jury. "Plaintiffs' descriptions of their experiences of racial discrimination - which allegedly are only the most recent chapter in the NFL's long history of systematic discrimination toward Black players, coaches, and managers - are incredibly troubling," U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni wrote in her decision. Caproni's ruling means plaintiffs' attorneys will have the ability to conduct depositions under oath of relevant parties, potentially including the likes of Patriots head coach Bill Belichick and Giants head coach Brian Daboll in answer to Flores' allegations against the Giants. On a broader scale, the judge's decision to allow the class action claims against the NFL for allegedly discriminatory hiring and firing practices to proceed in open court means potentially unprecedented exposure for the league and its clubs. "Today the court determined that the claims against the NFL can remain in Federal Court where we can conduct discovery and litigate in a transparent forum," plaintiffs attorney John Elefterakis said in a statement. "We look forward to continuing to fight systemic discrimination against Black coaches in the NFL." Caproni did rule that some claims must be submitted to arbitration before NFL commissioner Roger Goodell: Flores' claims against the Miami Dolphins, San Francisco 49ers defensive coordinator Steve Wilks' claims against the Arizona Cardinals, and USFL head coach Ray Horton's claims against the Tennessee Titans. But this ruling signifies progress towards transparency and, hopefully, change. "We are pleased that Coach Flores' class claims of systematic discrimination against the NFL and several teams will proceed in court and ultimately before a jury of his peers," plaintiffs attorney Douglas H. Wigdor said in a statement. "We are disappointed the court compelled arbitration of any claims before Mr. Goodell as he is obviously biased and unqualified to rule on these matters," Wigdor added. "We expect him to delegate those matters to a truly neutral arbitrator as a matter of fundamental fairness. We look forward to pursuing all these claims to trial in their various forums." The NFL said in a statement from spokesman Brian McCarthy that the league is "pleased with the court's decision" to compel several claims into arbitration and intends to "seek to dismiss the remaining claims." "Diversity and inclusion throughout the NFL make us a better organization," the league's statement read. "We recognize there is more work to be done and we are deeply committed to doing it. That said, we are pleased with the court's decision, which correctly holds that the vast majority of claims in this case are properly arbitrable by the Commissioner under binding agreements signed by each plaintiff. "We intend to move forward promptly with arbitrations as directed by the court and will seek to dismiss the remaining claims," the NFL's statement concluded. A Giants spokesperson said the team had no comment on the ruling. Flores' lawsuit against the Giants alleges that the team gave him a sham interview for their head coaching vacancy in January 2022. Flores alleges that Belichick sent him a text message two days before his Giants interview that was really intended for Daboll: "I hear from Buffalo and NYG that you are their guy." Giants co-owner John Mara hasn't held a media availability in almost a calendar year, but he said "the allegations are false" in March 2022 at the NFL owners' meetings in Palm Beach, Fla. "We're very comfortable with our hiring process, and it was a fair process, and we ended up making the decision we made based on a lot of factors, none of which had to do with race," Mara said last year. Mara also said no one from the Giants, including Mara himself, had spoken to Belichick about the hiring process. "I haven't spoken or communicated with Bill since we played them in the preseason last summer," Mara said last March, "and to my knowledge, nobody in our organization communicated with him." The league and clubs were trying to compel all of the claims and cases into arbitration. But Caproni ruled that the Giants and Texans "have failed to prove that an arbitration agreement was in effect when or after Mr. Flores was being considered for hire by those teams. Accordingly, Mr. Flores may litigate his claims against the Giants and Texans, and his related claims against the NFL, in federal court. "Given the number of Black men who play and coach football," Caproni added, "it is difficult to understand how it could be that, at the time Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit, 'the NFL had only one Black Head Coach.'" Now the cases go to a court and a jury, and there is no telling how significant the repercussions could be for these teams and the league. "We look forward to continuing to 'shine an unflattering spotlight' on the systemic discrimination against Black coaches in the NFL," Elefterakis said. [GN] NCB MANAGEMENT: Leon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Elia M. Leon and other similarly situated individuals v. NCB Management, Inc. d/b/a McDonald's Angel Veliz, and Rene D. Veliz, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-20755-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, but she was not paid for overtime hours at the rate of one time and half her regular rate. Sometimes, Plaintiff was paid more than 40 hours, but at her regular rate. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants could track the hours worked by the Plaintiff, and they knew about the hours worked by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half her regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time construction laborer from March 15, 2020, to January 07, 2023. NCB Management, Inc d/b/a McDonald's is a fast food franchise company that operates multiple McDonald's fast food restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com NEW PERSPECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Eggeman Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB EGGEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW PERSPECTIVE REALTY, LLC d/b/a PARKER REALTY ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00818-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio., Feb. 28, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Eggeman was employed by the Defendants as maintenance worker. PARKER & ASSOCIATES INC. was founded in 1980. The company's line of business includes providing management consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com NEW WORLD CONDOMINIUMS: Faces Lawsuit After Massive Fire in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Rodriguez at nbcmiami.com reports that residents who were displaced due to a fire at a Miami Gardens condominium over a month ago have taken their grievances to court. A class action lawsuit was filed against the management company, condo association and board of directors of the New World Condominiums. "Someone has to be accountable for this," said Shekita Whitfield, the plaintiff. "I mean we keep hearing that there was no insurance and this and that, but we are the victims here and we deserve help." The complaint was also filed on "behalf of those similarly situated," meaning the nearly 200 residents and owners can decide if they want to be part of the class action lawsuit. The complaint states the defendants saw this fire coming but ignored blatant signs that could have prevented it, such as the failure to address a number of fire code violations and failure to secure proper insurance. "The complaint seeks damages in excess of $8.6 million," said attorney Yolanda Strader. "There is no way for us to know what the exact damages are. This is how the initial complaint was filed." About 20 former New World residents are still living at the Betty T. Ferguson recreation center. Some of them said they are in limbo. As for cause of fire, that is still under investigation.[GN] NEW YORK, NY: To Settle Suit Over Police Brutality in 2020 Protest ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Ramierz, writing for USA Today, reports that New York City is set to pay several hundred people $21,500 apiece to settle a class-action lawsuit brought after protesters were corralled and then beaten by police in 2020 while demonstrating against police brutality in the Bronx. The proposed settlement, pending a federal judge's approval, would be among the highest-ever per-person settlement in a class-action case involving mass arrests. "While we are happy to have gotten this result for the people who were attacked and arrested, the fact remains that the highest leadership of the NYPD carried out an organized, premeditated attack on peaceful citizens in broad daylight with no real consequences," said Michael Spiegel, among the attorneys for the plaintiffs. What sparked the lawsuit? The June 2020 incident took place in the Bronx's mostly residential Mott Haven neighborhood, where more than 300 protestors were demonstrating after the previous month's murder of George Floyd by a former Minneapolis police officer. In a controversial practice known as "kettling," police corralled protesters into a one-block area near a stretch of Interstate 87, where many were then beaten and struck with batons. The practice, also known as "trap and detain," has been criticized for contributing to heightened tensions and has since come under scrutiny by city and police department leaders nationwide. New York City's inspector general, in a December 2020 report examining the NYPD's handling of that summer's protests, noted that the Mott Haven demonstrators never had a chance to leave once surrounded by police. Civil rights organization Human Rights Watch said the incident violated international human rights laws in its own report, citing evidence that police planned an aggressive crackdown on the Mott Haven protesters. Attorney calls settlement 'unprecedented' Police used bicycles to form a wall around protesters while officers, including some in riot gear, attacked demonstrators -- beating them with batons, kicking and punching them, and spraying them with pepper spray, the report from the Human Rights Watch said. At least 61 people were hurt, with injuries including a broken nose, lost tooth, sprained shoulder, broken finger, split lip, black eyes and bruises. "The violence unleashed upon us that night was intentional, unwarranted, and will be with me for the rest of my life," said Charles Henry Wood, among the five plaintiffs. "What the NYPD did, aided by the political powers of New York City, was an extreme abuse of power." Attorney Joshua Moskovitz described the images from that evening's police operation as reminiscent of "Bloody Sunday," the March 1965 incident in which state troopers in Selma, Alabama, viciously attacked activists marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Footage of the incident, broadcast on national television, helped spur passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. "This unprecedented settlement recognizes that the NYPD's actions on June 4th were grievously wrong and we hope this settlement marks an inflection point for policing in New York City," Moskovitz said. Terms of the settlement According to the settlement terms, each protester will get $21,500, with some who were detained longer by police receiving an additional $2,500. In a statement, the NYPD said protests in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic were a "challenging moment" for officers and the department and that it has since reformed how it responds to protests. "Much of the NYPD's policies and training for policing large-scale demonstrations have been re-envisioned based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period," the department said. "The NYPD remains committed to continually improving its practices in every way possible." If the settlement is approved, protesters will have several months to accept or object to the terms. A fairness hearing will be conducted in October for final approval, attorney Rob Rickner said. "This settlement serves as testimony of the wrongdoing by the hands of the NYPD, and it is a reminder that this institution is not built to protect Black and Brown communities," said Amali Sierra, among five protestors named as plaintiffs in the suit. Ali Frick, another attorney for the plaintiffs, said she was gratified that the settlement would offer some measure of justice to those involved. "We hope this historic award forces the City to finally account for how it polices peaceful demonstrations," Frick said.[GN] NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Mammogram Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- VOCM reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against two of Newfoundland and Labrador's four regional health authorities in relation to mammography reviews completed last year. The issue first came to light in August when Central Health announced they would review some 3,000 images taken over a three-year period because the monitors used did not meet the resolution requirements set by Health Canada. Each of the other health authorities followed suit, resulting in another 10,000-plus images being reviewed. Now, Bob Buckingham Law has launched a class-action suit against Eastern Health and Labrador-Grenfell Health, adding they expect to launch similar action against the other two health authorities. Buckingham says Health Canada requires monitor resolution to be checked before the first use of X-ray equipment, and annually thereafter. He claims the fact that the equipment was used for so long indicates that proper quality control steps were not taken. The key plaintiff in the case has been identified as Michele Shears-Rumbolt, but others are expected to join. Buckingham says the woman hopes that by taking this action the public will learn what happened, that the proper people will be held accountable, and that lessons will be learned to ensure it doesn't happen again. A registration form has been created online for people who may be eligible to join the class. [GN] NYC WHOLESALE DIAMONDS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYC Wholesale Diamonds, Inc. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NYC Wholesale Diamonds, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01518 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NYC Wholesale Diamonds -- https://www.nycwholesalediamonds.com/ -- has certified diamonds, engagement rings and jewelry at the best prices in the diamond district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com OKCOIN USA: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Nguyen Class Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MICHAEL NGUYEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. OKCOIN USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-06022-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs Michael Nguyen and Nader George filed the instant putative class action against OKCoin USA, alleging that it misrepresented the stability and financial security of a cryptocurrency called TerraUSD ("UST"), resulting in financial loss to the class. The Defendant is a web-based cryptocurrency exchange, offering retail investors a marketplace to buy and sell cryptocurrencies. In 2020, Terraform Labs began issuing UST, a cryptocurrency intended to maintain a one-to-one value with the U.S. dollar. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant promoted UST as essentially a digital U.S. dollar which eliminated the volatility risk inherent to more speculative cryptocurrencies. In May 2022, however, UST lost 90% of its value in days, during which the Defendant restricted users from trading UST. The Plaintiffs are the Defendant's customers, who made purchases of UST on its platform. Nguyen opened an account with the Defendant in November 2021, and was required to agree to its Terms of Service ("TOS") to open his account. Likewise, George opened his account in March 2022, and was required to agree to the Defendant's TOS to open his account. At the time the Plaintiffs opened their accounts, the September 2021 TOS was in effect. The September 2021 TOS included an arbitration clause, which required that arbitration be conducted by JAMS, and that the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules & Procedures, as modified by this Agreement, will apply. In the event that arbitration before JAMS is unavailable or impossible for any valid reason, such arbitration will be conducted by, and according to the rules and regulations then in effect of, the American Arbitration Association (AAA). On Sept. 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant case, asserting claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). On Nov. 17, 2022, the Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration, seeking to compel an arbitration agreement within its September 2021 TOS. On Dec. 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition and the Defendant filed its reply on Jan. 13, 2023. As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether the September 2021 TOS or July 2022 TOS applies. The Plaintiffs argue that the July 2022 TOS applies. The Defendant, however, responds that the September 2021 TOS still applies because it did not notify existing users by e-mail or other means about the July 2022 TOS. Rather, it simply updated the TOS on its website. Judge Westmore finds no evidence in the record that the Plaintiffs had notice of the July 2022 TOS. Rather, the only evidence in the record is that the Defendant did not notify its existing users of the July 2022 TOS. Thus, the September 2021 TOS still applies. The Plaintiff also argues that the arbitration clause is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. However, Judge Westmore finds that his review is limited to whether the delegation clause is unconscionable. Generally, in deciding whether a dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, the Court also determines the gateway issues of (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. These gateway issues, however, can be expressly delegated to the arbitrator where "the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. In the case, Judge Westmore says there are effectively two delegation clauses: (1) a delegation clause to JAMS, and (2) a delegation clause to AAA, in the event that arbitration before JAMS is impossible. She finds that per JAMS's explicit policy, it will conduct arbitrations involving consumers "only if" the September 2021 TOS meets its minimum standards. Because the September 2021 TOS does not, arbitration before JAMS is not available, rendering any delegation clause to JAMS effectively void. While she finds that the delegation clause to JAMS is unenforceable, Judge Westmore concludes that the delegation clause to AAA is valid. She holds that while the arbitration agreement as a whole -- including the delegation clause -- may be procedurally unconscionable given that it is an adhesion contract, the Plaintiffs make no argument that the delegation clause itself is substantively unconscionable. Accordingly, she finds that the case must be compelled to arbitration before the AAA, who will determine whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable. Of course, should the AAA decline administration of the arbitration, the parties would presumably be required to return to the Court to determine whether there is an enforceable arbitration clause. For the reasons she stated, Judge Westmore grants the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and orders that arbitration be submitted to the AAA. She stays the proceedings in the instant case pending resolution of the arbitration. The parties will provide a status report within 30 days of the completion of the arbitration (or any declination by the AAA to administer the arbitration) or within six months of the date of the Order, whichever is sooner. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ruwexmyp from Leagle.com. OKLOHAMA: Legal Group Sues Over Jail's Mental Health Services ------------------------------------------------------------- City Sentinel reports that the Tulsa law firm Frederic Dorwart, Lawyers PLLC ("FDL") and the Oklahoma Disability Law Center filed a civil rights class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of four plaintiffs with severe mental illness who are incarcerated in Oklahoma's county jails for months awaiting court-ordered mental health services known as competency restoration treatment. The lawsuit argues that the prolonged time periods Plaintiffs are forced to wait for treatment while incarcerated violate their due process rights under the federal and Oklahoma constitutions. The group filing the federal lawsuit alleges that "Oklahoma's competency restoration system is broken." Plaintiffs Leslie Briggs, Evan Watson, and Henry A. Meyer, III brought the lawsuit as "Next Friends" of four defendants who have been declared incompetent in Oklahoma criminal cases. The Next Friends are all Oklahoma lawyers who have been appointed as "guardians ad litem" for the defendants in their criminal cases. "People experiencing mental illness while locked up in county jails are among the most vulnerable and powerless people in our communities," said Paul DeMuro, lead counsel for Plaintiffs, and partner in Frederic Dorwart, Lawyers PLLC. "They are stuck in a horrible legal purgatory. Presumed innocent, but they can't go to trial to prove their innocence, or work out a plea deal, because they have been declared incompetent. The Department doesn't provide them the care they need so their competency can be restored and their cases put back on track. They are effectively being punished just for having a mental illness." The lawsuit claims that more than 100 people are currently, in the words of a press release sent to The City Sentinel, "caged" in Oklahoma county jails awaiting competency restoration treatment. Plaintiffs ask the Court, among other things, to order the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services to "develop a remedial plan to reduce wait times for competency evaluations and competency restoration treatment to within constitutional limits." Plaintiffs do not seek any monetary damages. In a criminal case, when an individual with mental illness is incapable of assisting in their own defense, a judge orders competency restoration treatment, which takes place at a state-run forensic center due to the specialized treatment required. While awaiting restoration services, the person's criminal case is suspended, and the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services is ordered to provide restorative treatment within a reasonable time. Oklahoma has only one state-run facility that provides competency restoration services for defendants in all 77 Oklahoma counties - the Oklahoma Forensic Center in Vinita. "Jails are, by their nature, punitive places. They are neither designed nor equipped to provide restoration treatment for people with mental illness," said DeMuro. The lawsuit alleges that Plaintiffs, and similarly situated people, are at a greater risk for abuse and self-harm while locked up in jail. "We have all seen the news reports about people experiencing mental health crises in Oklahoma jails dying at alarming rates," said Nick Southerland, staff attorney with the Oklahoma Disability Law Center. "Not only are incompetent defendants at increased risk of harm while incarcerated, they are also isolated from their friends, family, and community-based treatment providers while they are in jail." Federal courts have found that delays of longer than 7-14 days between a court's commitment order and hospitalization for treatment are unconstitutional. According to a report published by The Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, 'Fractured: Oklahoma's System of Trial Competency Restoration Leaves Hundreds Languishing in County Jails', there has been a long wait-list in Oklahoma for people to get a bed and care at the Oklahoma Forensic Center. The facility has 200 beds, with an additional 80 under construction. All 200 beds are fully occupied and between 173 and 211 individuals around Oklahoma are on a wait-list spending months in jail waiting for competency restoration services. The Oklahoma Forensic Center has seen a 260% increase in the waitlist for competency restoration services between March of 2020 and April of 2022. The number of patients in Oklahoma found Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness has increased by 28% in the last five years. In the complaint, Tulsa County's elected Sheriff, Vic Regalado is quoted in his testimony to the Senate Public Safety Committee in 2021, "Jails are 'the de facto mental health facilities in Oklahoma, and if that doesn't cause you embarrassment, shame, all those negative feelings, it should. Because it means we've said mental illness means absolutely nothing in the state of Oklahoma." The lawsuit alleges that the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, which operates the Oklahoma Forensic Center has violated the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's due process rights and rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, by denying them timely and appropriate treatment for their mental health issues. In addition to filing the case as a class action, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, asking the court to order ODMHSAS to provide the capacity to admit committed patients to treatment within a reasonable time. The lawsuit was filed against Carrie Slatton-Hodges, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services and Crystal Hearnandez, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma Forensic Center. Attorneys litigating the case include Paul DeMuro, Frederic Dorwart and David W. Leimbach of Frederic Dorwart, Lawyers PLLC and Nick Southerland and Brian S. Wilkerson of the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Inc. The filing is before Northern District Court of Oklahoma is based in and around Tulsa Case No. 23-cv-00081-GKF-JFJ). Note: Pat McGuigan of The City Sentinel newspaper prepared this story for posting, working from a press release provided by Houda Elyazgi of Saxum, a public relations firm with offices in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. [GN] ORGANIZED LIVING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Organized Living, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Organized Living, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01614 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Organized Living -- https://organizedliving.com/ -- is the industry leader of high-quality home storage and organization products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PAYPAL INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit Affecting 35,000 Users --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that PayPal Inc. is facing a proposed class action alleging its negligence led to a December 2022 data breach that exposed the personal financial information of nearly 35,000 people. Ashley Pillard and Destiny Rucker alleged that PayPal failed to implement basic security practices or comply with industry data-protection standards or Federal Trade Commission guidelines. Information exposed in the breach included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, and dates of birth, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.[GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Central Bucks SD Sued Over Female Teachers' Backpay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jo Ciavaglia, writing for Bucks County Courier Times, reports that Central Bucks School District could owe more than $30 million in back pay to hundreds of female teachers, according to an attorney in a class-action lawsuit that alleges the district offered better starting pay for men compared to women with the same level of experience and education. More than 300 current and former female teachers in the district have signed on as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, according to attorney Ed Muzarek, who is handling the case. So far, more than 200 of those new plaintiffs have provided back pay calculations amounting to more than $29 million in damages, with the amount anticipated to increase based on an amended complaint filed in the federal case, Muzerek said. Here are the significant developments in the federal lawsuit, which is tentatively scheduled for trial later this year in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia CBSD teacher pay lawsuit Was Central Bucks underpaying women teachers? Judge OKs collective action for claims back to 2000 Central Bucks teachers bring pay lawsuit in 2020 In April 2020, Central Bucks teacher Rebecca Cartee-Haring filed a federal suit against the district alleging the district routinely hired men at higher pay grades than those set by district policies between 2000 and 2023, an alleged violation of the Equal Pay Act. Teacher Dawn Marinello filed her lawsuit with the same allegations in June 2021, and the two lawsuits were consolidated. The lawsuit includes the starting salary details of about 35 teachers over the past 20 years, and alleges that male teachers were often given credit for past experience when women were not. The suit alleges that male teachers were hired with past experience counted contrary to multiple policies in place, while women, including the two plaintiffs, were typically paid based on either only a portion or none of their teaching experience, the lawsuit alleges. Federal Judge Michael M. Baylson certified the lawsuit as a collective class action last year meaning other female teachers who worked in the district from 2000 to 2023 could opt-in. How much could the CB equal pay lawsuit cost the district? More than 325 teachers opted-in to the lawsuit as plaintiffs as of the Jan. 31, 2023 deadline, according to Muzarek. So far, 217 have submitted back pay calculations and based on those calculations alone the back pay damage amount is a little more than $29 million, he said. As of now the average back pay owed is $133,640 per teacher, Muzarek said. But the district could be forced to pay out even more, if it's found to have violated the Equal Pay Act. Under the law, plaintiffs are allowed to cover liquidated damages, which doubles the amount of back pay owed. That means the $29 million damage estimate could exceed $60 million, according to Muzarek. If the court establishes that the district violated the Equal Pay Act, part of the relief sought is for the district to increase the pay for all current female teachers in the district, Muzarek said. What are the latest developments with the Central Bucks lawsuit? Baylson recently accepted Muzarek's amended complaint. which included two significant changes. One requests client claims for prospective relief, which means if the plaintiffs prevail, female teachers who started lower on the step scale than they should, based on experience, would be moved up higher on the scale, Muzarek said. The amended complaint also seeks lost pension benefits for female teachers whose pensions were calculated based on lower salaries than they should have been. The lawsuit is in the discovery phase where both sides are legally required to provide each other with evidence. A trial date has been tentatively set for Oct. 2. What happened to the Central Bucks human resource officer who testified? The Central Bucks School Board approved a paid leave for Director Human Resources and Chief of Staff Andrea DiDio-Hauber effective Aug. 15, 2022 until Nov. 30, 2022. District spokeswoman Angela Linch did not respond immediately to an email on March 6 asking about the employment status of DiDio-Hauber and her name did not appear on lists for employment status changes in board meeting minutes for November through February. In November, the school board approved a five year contract with Lisa Corr to serve as Human Resources Director at a salary of $150,000 a year. Corr, who assumed her new role on Dec. 1, was most recently served as a counselor and student services coordinator at Central Bucks High School West. In July, 2022, DiDio-Hauber was placed on an "indefinite" paid leave and ordered not to have contact with "any district employee through any medium whatsoever," according to a copy of a July internal email from Superintendent Abe Lucabaugh. The email did not provide a reason for the leave, but a district spokesman, at the time, denied it was connected to the federal lawsuit. She has been employed with the district for eight years. The August school board minutes listed the reason for DiDio-Hauber's leave as "FMLA/Medical/Administrative." At a June 28, 2022 hearing in the lawsuit, the judge questioned testimony DiDio-Hauber gave that the district did have a policy in place to review salary placement for teachers. Baylson also questioned the validity of DiDio-Hauber's testimony on salary reviews, after she said that she had never notified teachers that a review of their initial salary placement was an option. [GN] PNC FINANCIAL: Holtz Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Holtz, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. CACE-23-002522 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful collection of debt. Pursuant to the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person shall: "communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the debtor." On February 15, 2023, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The Communication was a communication in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 12:34 AM in Plaintiff's zone. The Defendant sent an electronic communication to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent to the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of the Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the Communication, the Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania Corporation, with its principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com PRISMA LABS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Lamoureux, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that several months ago, you may have seen social media filled with artistic renditions of your connections as paintings, cartoons, or other artistic styles. These renditions came from Lensa, an app by which users upload "selfies" or other photos, which the app processes to generate artistic images of the user. Lensa, which is owned by Prisma Labs, Inc., is the latest subject of a putative class action brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). In Flora, et al., v. Prisma Labs, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00680 (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs -- a group that includes a minor child -- are residents of Illinois who used the Lensa app to create artistic images of themselves. Plaintiffs allege that they used Lensa in December 2022, after the app exploded in popularity in November 2022 due to the launch of the "magic avatars" feature, which requires users to upload at least eight images of themselves (and up to 20 images) to create artistic, stylized "avatars" of the user's face. The app can also be used to upload images of others, and create avatars based on those images. Plaintiffs allege that Lensa's privacy policy as of December 2022 did not inform users that their facial geometry would be collected to create the avatars, and that several oblique references to Lensa's use and processing of users' images lead users to believe that their biometric data is "anonymized" and does not leave the user's device -- which seemingly contradicts Lensa's model of collecting users' images and generating avatars based on those images. The Complaint also alleges that Lensa's privacy policy temporarily disclosed that "face data" will be used to "train" its "neural network algorithms," but that the provision was subsequently removed, and never included provisions of how that data would be protected or disclosed. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "All persons who reside in Illinois whose biometric data was collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained by Prisma, either through use of the Lensa app or otherwise." Plaintiffs bring seven causes of action under Sections 15(a), 15(b)(1), 15(b)(2), 15(b)(3), 15(c), 15(d), and 15(e) of BIPA, as well as an additional claim for unjust enrichment based on Lensa's paid subscription service. The Complaint also raises additional concerns about Lensa's business model and methods of generating images. For example, upon downloading the app, a user is prompted to begin a seven-day trial subscription with Lensa; the Complaint alleges that the app uses dark patterns to prompt users to choose this option, rather than closing out of it and declining the trial subscription. The Complaint also alleges that Lensa uses Stable Diffusion to generate images, which is an open-source AI model trained on over 2 billion copyrighted images, including images that are protected by copyright. As alleged in the Complaint, the system could violate the intellectual property rights of artists who own the copyrights in the images used to train the AI model. Flora is similar to past BIPA class actions brought against apps that allow users to virtually "try on" makeup, clothing, or other beauty items, as well as class actions brought against entities that use images to "train" models of AI. Plaintiffs are represented by Loevy & Loevy, which notably prevailed in the first BIPA case to go to trial, Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company. [GN] RANCHO MESQUITE: Oldham Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------- Micheal Oldham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RANCHO MESQUITE CASINO, INC. dba EUREKA CASINO HOTEL, Case No. 2:23-cv-00304 (D. Nev., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought on behalf of consumers whose sensitive personal information was stolen by cybercriminals in a massive cyber-attack at Eureka starting in November 9, 2022, and lasting through on November 13, 2022 (the "Data Breach"). Information stolen in the Data Breach included individuals' sensitive information, including at least, full name, Social Security number, and driver's license number. Additional sensitive data may be involved, including financial account numbers or debit/credit card numbers (in combination with security code, password, or PIN from the account) (collectively, the "Private Information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff and Class Members face an ongoing and lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened by the exposure of their Social Security numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of their private and confidential information, loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information which was entrusted to the Defendant, their officials and agents—was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Colorado. The Defendant owns and operates hotels and casinos in Mesquite, Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Seabrook, New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 421 Court Street Reno, NV 89501 Phone: (775) 329-1766 Fax: (703) 934-6377 Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com RC SUPERSTORE INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RC Superstore, Inc. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. RC Superstore, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01655 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. RC Superstore -- https://www.rcsuperstore.com/ -- is a family-owned and operated hobby store and mail-order company that began in 2002.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com RED ROBIN: Stipulated Protective Order Issued in Avalos-Aviles Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California enters a Stipulated Protective Order in the case, JOSE JESUS AVALOS-AVILES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiff v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. dba RED ROBIN BURGER AND SPIRITS EMPORIUMS, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-1257 DAD DB (E.D. Cal.). Discovery in the wage and hour class action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that the Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. They further acknowledge that the Order does not entitle them to file Confidential Information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by a separate agreement or the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition is the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action, with or without prejudice, or (2) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, re-hearings, remands, trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time under applicable law. Any Party or Nonparty may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time consistent with the Court's scheduling order. The burden of persuasion in any such proceeding is on the Designating Party. After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by civil or criminal contempt, financial or evidentiary sanctions, reference to disciplinary authorities, or other appropriate action at the discretion of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Stipulated Protective Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/58xweju8 from Leagle.com. Orlando Villalba -- Orlando.Villalba@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Helga Hakimi -- Helga.Hakimi@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Roxanna Tabatabaeepour -- Roxanna.Taba@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Jose Jesus Avalos-Aviles. Adam Y. Siegel -- Roxanna.Taba@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Martin P. Vigodnier -- Roxanna.Taba@CapstoneLawyers.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Medical Info, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON MASSER DOWNS, M.B., a minor, by and through her legal guardian, SHANNON MASSER DOWNS; and MARIA HINESTROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; LAKESIDE MEDICAL ORGANIZATION, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; AFFILIATED DOCTORS OF ORANGE COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; and GREATER COVINA MEDICAL GROUP, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01507 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to prevent data breach on their patients' sensitive personal and medical data which was compromised when unauthorized actors were able to breach the Defendants' network and access files containing approximately 3,300,638 individual's PII (the "Data Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite the fact that many of the categories of PII exposed in the Data Breach, such as Social Security numbers and medical information, cannot be changed, Defendants failed to detect the breach until a week later, on or around December 8, 2022, and failed to notify affected individuals until on or around February 1, 2023—approximately two months after unauthorized individuals accessed Plaintiffs' and current and former patients' highly sensitive PII stored on Defendants' systems. The Defendants' failure to promptly notify Plaintiffs and Class members that their PII was exfiltrated due to Defendants' security failures virtually ensured that the unauthorized third parties who exploited those security lapses could monetize, misuse and/or disseminate that PII before Plaintiffs and Class members could take affirmative steps to protect their sensitive information. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members will suffer indefinitely from the substantial and concrete risk that their identities will be, or already have been, stolen and misappropriated, says the suit. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC. provides health care services. The Company offers appointment preparation, patient rights, preventive, and vital care services. Regal Medical Group operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: jrotter@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com -and- Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, Il 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 205 N. Monroe St. Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on February 16, 2023, Judge Josephine L. Staton of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, and Regulation S‑K against an electric automobile company, certain of its executives and directors, and underwriters in the company's initial public offering. Crews v. Rivian Automotive, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2023), ECF No. 149. Plaintiffs alleged that the company made various misrepresentations relating to the pricing and profitability of the company's vehicles, while allegedly knowing that it would need to increase pricing to address rising costs. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any false statement or actionable omission. The Court first assessed statements concerning the company's profitability. Concerning statements attributing the company's negative gross monthly profits to "significant labor and overhead costs" at a particular factory, while noting that it had "just started to ramp vehicle production at the site" (Id. at 20), the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the statement suggested that merely increasing production volume would solve the company's negative profitability. The Court determined that the challenged statement "ma[de] no promises, explicit or implied," and that other disclosures in the offering documents emphasized that "[w]e do not expect to be profitable for the foreseeable future . . . and we cannot assure you that we will ever achieve or be able to maintain profitability in the future." Id. at 21-22. The Court further held that the company's statements that it expected to "operate at a negative gross profit per vehicle for the near term" were, in fact, consistent with plaintiffs' allegation that the company internally projected a three-year path to profitability. Id. at 23. The Court also assessed challenged statements relating to the pricing of the company's vehicles. For statements that referenced inflation and customer demand as driving vehicle pricing, the Court found these statements were not plausibly alleged to be false even if, as plaintiffs alleged, price increases would have been eventually required regardless of those factors. Id. at 25. The Court explained that in "broaching the subject of potential price increases, [the company] did not need to address all relevant considerations or disclose its internal profitability projections and pricing strategy." Id. at 25. Having dismissed plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims for failure to adequately allege misstatements, the Court likewise dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, noting that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged falsity regardless of whether the Securities Act claims sounded in fraud and the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) applied. Id. at 28, 35-36. In addition, the Court rejected plaintiffs' claims based on Item 105 of SEC Regulation S-K (requiring offering materials filed on form S-1 to discuss the most significant risk factors) as well as Item 303 of Regulation S-K (requiring the disclosure of "any known trends or uncertainties" materially impacting net sales or revenues). Id. at 29. Plaintiffs alleged that the company should have disclosed that its production costs had been increasing, its gross profit margins were becoming increasingly negative, its projected timeline for positive gross profit margins was being pushed back further into the future, its vehicle prices needed to increase, and that without price increases the company would lose money on each vehicle sold for several years. Id. at 29-30. The Court rejected that the company was required to disclose that prices needed to be increased, noting that plaintiffs' allegations suggested only that company management knew that "prices would need to increase eventually, but the timing of price hikes was in flux." Id. at 32. The Court explained that it was "reluctant to interpret securities laws and regulations as requiring disclosure of a prospective pricing strategy or challenging pricing decisions that a company is currently facing." Id. at 32-33. The Court further rejected plaintiffs' arguments based on allegedly rising production costs. Noting that vehicle profit margins were not known until two months before the IPO, the Court emphasized that rising costs in the company's "internal forecasts and pre-production estimates" did not need to be disclosed because that amounted to a "future trend projection" rather than a present known trend. Id. at 34. Moreover, the Court concluded that Item 105 and Item 303 do not require disclosure "at th[e] level of specificity" of the bill of materials cost for a particular vehicle model, given that the company had not otherwise addressed pricing for that specific model in the offering documents. Id. Crews v. Rivian Automotive, Inc. [GN] ROSEN SKINCARE: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosen Skincare, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rosen Skincare, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01602-JHR-VF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rosen Skincare -- https://www.rosenskincare.com/ -- is a brand of natural, but effective skincare products targeted towards young, active, and diverse individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com SG STONE & MASONRY: Perez-Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Perez-Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SG STONE & MASONRY, INC. d/b/a JA BRICK STONE MASONRY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00422 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 5, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff, like other laborers employed by Defendant, regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week during his entire tenure with the company but, despite not being exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, he was not paid the required overtime premium for his hours worked in excess of 40 each work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of several stone masons and laborers. SG Stone & Masonry, Inc. d/b/a JA Brick Stone Masonry is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon A. Lang Jessica Hughes LANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1903 Vermont Street Houston, Texas 77019 Phone: (832) 479-9400 Fax: (832) 479-9421 Email: shannon.lang@shannonlanglaw.com jessica.hughes@shannonlanglaw.com SPRING SOLA LLC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spring Sola, LLC. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spring Sola, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01600 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spring Sola -- https://thesolacompany.com/ -- offers crafted foods are low-carb, Non-GMO and Keto certified.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com STAT EXPERTS: Elkadi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Fahd Elkadi, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. STAT EXPERTS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00228-ADC (D. Md., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought asserting that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime compensation in violation of the of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"). The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant compensated the Plaintiff by paying him on a per assignment basis during his employment. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff any additional compensation for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant failed/fails to pay the Plaintiff at a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for each hour that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. As a result of the Defendant's aforesaid illegal actions, the Plaintiff have suffered damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Driver. The Defendant is a company headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manali Arora, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 SUMMIT UTILITIES: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Price Gouging ------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Kienlen at kark.com reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court against Summit Utilities alleging price gouging. The case was brought against Summit Utilities, Inc. and Summit Utilities Arkansas, Inc., and claims Summit has "utterly failed" to provide gas service. It also states the company "has price-gouged" customers with "substantial over-billing." It claims issues started during the transition after Summit purchased CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. gas utility resources in 2021. During the transition, the suit alleges, a promised seamless transition between the two utility providers did not take place. When Summit fully took over the former CenterPoint gas service for Arkansas and Oklahoma in December 2022, prices for gas service became "extraordinarily high," the suit alleges. It also alleges that the company has also failed to credit customer accounts for payments. The suit does not name all the members of the class, although it states it believes more than 70 Summit customers exist to qualify for a class action. The suit asks for the court to declare Summit has "breached its implied duty of good faith" and an accounting of money paid to the company. It further asks that members of the class be allowed to stop making monthly payments until accounting issues are corrected. Summit Utilities has been in the news since the December 2022 transition from Center Point. At that time, several customers reported bills much higher than they had been in the past. For example, one customer reported her bill had jumped from between $60 to $100 a month to now $300 a month. Others complained about bills jumping from $35 up to $200. In late January, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin responded to complaints after his office reportedly received hundreds of complaints from Summit customers. At the time, Summit Utilities senior director of external affairs Brian Bowen said data processing, which had used a system to estimate bills, had caused a problem but had been resolved. An increase in gas prices paid by the utility had also caused a rate hike, he said.[GN] SYNGENTA CROP: Graham Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Norman H. Graham, Ryan W. Graham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, Corteva, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00069 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Feb. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00179 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Syngenta AG -- https://www.syngenta.com/en -- is a provider of agricultural science and technology, in particular seeds and pesticides with its management headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR. 429 Forbes Avenue 519 Allegheny Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1649 Phone: (412) 391-5164 Email: yateslaw@aol.com - and - Erin G. Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: (860) 537-5537 Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Michelle Conston, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Fax: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com mconston@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul Mishkin, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 450-4000 Email: paul.mishkin@davispolk.com TACO VIDA: Coen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Coen, and all those similarly situated v. TACO VIDA LLC and TACO REPUBLIC CORINTH, LLC d/b/a TACO REPUBLIC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02046 (D. Kan., Feb. 4, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation and related penalties and damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant's policies and practices deny minimum wages and overtime pay to servers/bartenders working at its restaurants. The Defendant's failure to pay employees their earned wages and overtime compensation violates the FLSA. The Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to properly pay minimum wages, and because the Defendant has violated the rules for using the tip credit, including that it requires servers/bartenders to spend more than 20 percent of their time engaged in non-tip-producing activities. The Defendant has also had a policy of not paying for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a server working for the Defendant. TACO REPUBLIC CORINTH, LLC doing business as TACO REPUBLIC is a restaurant with locations in Kansas City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Ziegelmeyer, III, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. Kevin Todd, Esq. Ethan Crockett, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: 816.875.3332 Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com bthoenen@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com ecrockett@hkm.com Web: www.hkm.com TAPATIO AUTO: Fajardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Against Tapatio Auto and Truck Wrecking, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Fajardo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tapatio Auto and Truck Wrecking, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100597 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Tapatio Auto and Truck Wrecking, Inc. -- https://www.tapatioauto.com/ -- is an automotive company.[BN] TEK COLLECT: Whitman Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tek Collect, Inc. The case is styled as Erin Whitman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tek Collect, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00432 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TekCollect Inc. -- http://www.tekcollect.com/-- provides comprehensive accounts receivable management, collections, and customer retention solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com TESLA INC: Lamontagne Sues Over Decline in Stock Market Value ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Lamontagne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., ELON R. MUSK, ZACHARY J. KIRKHORN, and DEEPAK AHUJA, Case No. 3:23-cv-00869 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Tesla common stock between February 19, 2019 and February 17, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials, as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock. In 2014, Tesla announced Tesla Autopilot, a suite of purportedly advanced driver-assistance system ("ADAS") features including automated lane-centering, traffic-aware cruise control, lane changes, semi-autonomous navigation, and self-parking. In September 2014, all Tesla cars started shipping with the sensors and software necessary to support the Autopilot system. Since then, the Company has touted refinements and enhancements to the Company's ADAS and Autopilot features, including so-called "Full Self-Driving" ("FSD") software, which purportedly enables Tesla vehicles to drive autonomously to a destination entered in the car's navigation system. The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy, viability, and safety of the Company's Autopilot and FSD technologies; contrary to Defendants' representations, Tesla's Autopilot and FSD technologies created a serious risk of accident and injury associated with the operation of Tesla vehicles; all the foregoing subjected Tesla to an increased risk of regulatory and governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, as well as reputational harm; and as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading. On April 18, 2021, media outlets reported that a Tesla vehicle with "no one" driving it had crashed into a tree, killing two passengers near Houston, Texas in a "fiery" crash. A Harris County Precinct constable told local news station KPRC 2 that the investigation showed "no one was driving" the 2019 Tesla vehicle when the accident occurred. On this news, Tesla's stock price fell $25.15 per share, or 3.4%, to close at $714.63 per share on April 19, 2021. On August 16, 2021, media outlets reported that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") had opened a formal investigation into Tesla's Autopilot system after a series of collisions with parked emergency vehicles. The scope of the investigation included 765,000 vehicles, or nearly every vehicle that Tesla has sold in the U.S. since the start of the 2014 model year. On this news, Tesla's stock price fell $31.00 per share, or 4.32%, to close at $686.17 per share on August 16, 2021. On June 3, 2022, media outlets reported that NHTSA had issued a formal inquiry to Tesla about the Autopilot and FSD features for certain models of its vehicles after receiving complaints from more than 750 owners of the vehicles about sudden and unexpected braking with no immediate cause. On this news, Tesla's stock price fell $71.45 per share, or 9.22%, to close at $703.55 per share on June 3, 2022. On January 27, 2023, media outlets reported that the SEC was investigating statements made by Tesla and its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Elon R. Musk, concerning the Autopilot system, including whether Musk made inappropriate forward-looking statements regarding the Autopilot system. On this news, Tesla's stock price fell $11.24 per share, or 6.32%, to close at $166.66 per share on January 30, 2023. On February 16, 2023, media outlets reported that NHTSA had ordered a recall of nearly 363,000 Tesla vehicles equipped with the Company's FSD "Beta" software, stating that the software may allow the equipped vehicles to act "in an unlawful or unpredictable manner," increasing the risk of a crash. On this news, Tesla's stock price fell $12.20 per share, or 5.69%, to close at $202.04 per share on February 16, 2023. Then, on February 18, 2023, media outlets reported that a Tesla vehicle had crashed into a fire truck that was responding to an earlier accident, killing the driver and injuring a passenger and four firefighters. News reports linked the crash with prior reports of Tesla vehicles crashing into stationary emergency vehicles as a consequence of poorly performing ADAS technologies, increasing market and public concerns regarding the Autopilot system in Tesla's vehicles. On this news, Tesla's stock price fell $10.94 per share, or 5.25%, to close at $197.37 per share on February 21, 2023, the next trading day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Tesla securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Tesla designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage, solar panels and roof tiles, and related products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com TIKTOK INC: Fugok Sues Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY FUGOK; and ADAM K. STOREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY, INC.); and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00779 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2023) class action on behalf of all persons who downloaded TikTok, a social media application ("TikTok app"), and used TikTok's in-app website browser ("in-app browser") which results in invasion of privacy by secretly intercepting information about the Plaintiffs and Class Members without their consent. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that TikTok users who click a link inside the application to access an external website, make purchases, register to vote, or seek to access any information external to the application itself, automatically launch an in-app browser which records all of the data that they input and the actions they take, even though the user appears to have exited the TikTok app. The complaint alleges that in-app browser inserts JavaScript code into the websites visited by TikTok users. The clear purpose of the JavaScript code inserted into these websites is to track every detail about TikTok users' website activity. TIKTOK INC. operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos. The Company provides a fully realized platform for connecting individuals to a vibrant community of content creators. TikTok serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kessler Topaz, Esq. Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Broom Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Wayne Broom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00221 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI) -- https://tsico.com/ -- is a market-leading provider of accounts receivable management and student loan servicing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com TREAN INSURANCE: Juan Monteverde Investigates Altaris Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Trean Insurance Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIG), relating to its proposed acquisition by affiliates of Altaris, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, TIG shareholders are expected to receive $6.15 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/trean-insurance-group-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NBT Bancorp Inc. (NASDAQ: NBTB) relating to its proposed merger with Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the merger, Salisbury shareholders will receive 0.745 shares of NBT per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/nbt-bancorp-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CSII), relating to its proposed sale to Abbott Laboratories. Under the terms of the agreement, CSII shareholders are expected to receive $20.00 in cash per common share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cardiovascular-systems-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Mid Penn Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: MPB), relating to its proposed acquisition of Brunswick Bancorp. Under the terms of the agreement, Brunswick shareholders are expected to receive either 0.598 shares of Mid Penn common stock or $18.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/mid-penn-bancorp-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] TRUE BLUE: Pruitt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Shanika Pruitt, individually, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. TRUE BLUE, INC, d/b/a PEOPLE READY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00104 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought against Defendant as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and class members routinely worked 40 or more hours within weekly pay periods for Defendant during all times material to this action. However, the Defendant has had a de facto policy and actual practice of the Plaintiff and putative class members would only be paid at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked over 40 per workweek on a particular job site, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid production associate. The Defendant is one of the largest staffing companies in the world with over 38 locations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com TRUE HEALTH: Proposes Settlement to Resolve Data Breach Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder, writing for HIPAA Journal, reports that the Albuquerque, NM-based health insurance provider, True Health New Mexico, has proposed a settlement to resolve claims related to a 2021 data breach that affected 62,983 members of its health plans. True Health New Mexico identified a security breach on October 5, 2021, with the investigation confirming that an unauthorized third party had gained access to its network and used ransomware to encrypt files. During the period of access, files were potentially viewed and exfiltrated that contained plan member data such as names, dates of birth, ages, home addresses, email addresses, insurance information, medical information, Social Security numbers, health account member IDs, provider information, and date(s) of service. No evidence of misuse of plan member data was identified at the time of issuing notification letters; however, as a precaution against identity theft and fraud, complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services were offered to affected individuals. Several lawsuits were filed soon after notifications were sent alleging the health plan provider was negligent for failing to take appropriate care to protect sensitive customer and employee data. The lawsuits also alleged negligence per se, invasion of privacy by intrusion, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. The lawsuits sought reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, recovery of losses to identity theft and fraud, and True Health New Mexico to ensure that security is improved to prevent further data breaches. True Health New Mexico proposed the settlement to resolve claims related to these lawsuits with no admission of wrongdoing. Claims will be accepted from individuals who received notifications about the data breach and were represented in three class action lawsuits, McCullough, et al. v. True Health New Mexico Inc., Clement, et al. v. True Health New Mexico Inc., and Shanks, et al. v. True Health New Mexico Inc., all of which were filed in the 2nd District Court of the State of New Mexico. The three lawsuits were consolidated into a single class action lawsuit on March 21, 2022. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, claims will be accepted up to a maximum of $5,250 per individual. Up to $250 can be claimed as reimbursement for ordinary expenses related to the data breach, such as bank fees, credit monitoring costs, and communication charges, as well as up to 5 hours of lost time at $20 per hour. Claims will also be accepted for documented extraordinary losses up to a maximum of $5,000, which can include losses to identity theft and fraud that can be reasonably traced to the data breach, as well as up to 3 hours of additional time at $20 per hour. The settlement also includes attorneys fees and awards of up to $1,500 for named plaintiffs and an additional 2 years of three-bureau credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, provided by Equifax, from the date of the settlement. True Health New Mexico has also agreed to improve security, which includes maintaining a written information security policy, providing cybersecurity training to the workforce, implementing a password policy, multi-factor authentication, and an endpoint detection and response solution; however, the settlement includes a clause that allows the health plan provider to escape the obligation to improve security. "In the event True Health discontinues operations, True Health will have no obligation to continue these equitable measures." True Health New Mexico, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bright Health, has already stopped providing health plans to New Mexico residents and will only provide coverage to existing health plan members until June 30, 2023, as Bright Health has decided to focus on markets where it will have the greatest impact. The deadline for objection to or exclusion from the settlement is April 14, 2023. Claims must be submitted no later than August 14, 2023. The final fairness hearing has been scheduled for May 10, 2023. [GN] UNITED STATES: Bid for Atty. Fees & Costs in Zhang v. USCIS Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HUASHAN ZHANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-995 (EGS) (D.D.C.), Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies in part and holds in abeyance in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses. Plaintiffs Huashan Zhang and Mayasuki Hagiwara brought the action on behalf of themselves and a class of EB-5 investors following an announcement from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") that cash acquired from a loan would be treated as "indebtedness" and no longer be considered "cash" for purposes of their visa petitions. Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses filed on April 23, 2021. The Plaintiffs seek fees for 1,017.85 hours, calculated using three different hourly rates: (1) $429,986, applying the regular hourly rates of the Plaintiffs' counsel; (2) $452,411, applying the Laffey Matrix hourly rates; or (3) $198,645.03, applying their calculation of the relevant statutory hourly rate as adjusted for cost-of-living increases. The Plaintiffs also seek reimbursement of $3,802.00 in costs. Defendants USCIS; Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ur Jaddou, in his official capacity as Director of USCIS; and Alissa Emmel, in her official capacity as Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program as USCIS, oppose this request. The litigation concerns the EB-5 visa program, through which immigrant investors who invest a minimum amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise are able to pursue lawful permanent residency. USCIS regulations historically defined capital to include, inter alia, lawfully-acquired cash and indebtedness secured by the investor's personally-owned assets. But in 2015, USCIS announced that it would treat loan proceeds as indebtedness, not as cash, and that loan proceeds would qualify as capital only if the loan was secured by personally-owned assets. Because of this change in interpretation, USCIS denied Mr. Zhang and Mr. Hagiwara's EB-5 visa petitions, along with the petitions of other similarly situated EB-5 investors. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on June 23, 2015 to obtain relief. On behalf of a class of similarly situated EB-5 petitioners, the Plaintiffs sought invalidation of USCIS's loan proceeds rule. On Nov. 30, 2018, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order holding that cash loan proceeds are unambiguously "cash" under 8 C.F.R. Section 204.6(e); that USCIS' position contravened the regulation's plain meaning; and that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706, in issuing the rule without notice and comment. It also certified the plaintiff class and remanded all EB-5 visa petitions that the agency denied based on its invalid interpretation of loan proceeds. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this Court's decision on Oct. 27, 2020. Judge Sullivan explains that the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 2412, provides that authorization for "prevailing parties" to recover their attorney's fees and costs in actions against the United States unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. The party seeking an EAJA fee award must submit an application showing (1) that it is a prevailing party, (2) its statutory eligibility to receive an award, and (3) the amount sought, including an itemized statement breaking down that claim for reimbursement. The moving party also must allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified. The United States then bears the burden of establishing that its position was substantially justified. In support of their motion for attorney's fees, the Plaintiffs submit an affidavit from Mr. Hagiwara -- the sole fee applicant -- in which he avers that his individual net worth does not, nor has it ever, exceeded the amount of $2 million. The Plaintiffs do not submit any further information about Mr. Hagiwara's finances in their briefing. The Defendants challenge this "bare assertion" as insufficient to satisfy the EAJA financial-eligibility requirement. They argue that Mr. Hagiwara should have submitted documentation about his assets and liabilities to enable the Court to assess his net worth. They further contend that the record contains information suggesting that Mr. Hagiwara's net worth may exceed the EAJA threshold. There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in the litigation. The parties disagree as to whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the statutory threshold requirements to recover their attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA. The Defendants direct the Court to several points in the record concerning Mr. Hagiwara's finances. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court need not consider this record evidence at all. Judge Sullivan concludes that he must consider the Plaintiffs' affidavit along with evidence in the record to assess whether Mr. Hagiwara meets the EAJA net worth requirement. He finds that the Plaintiffs fail to take into consideration several significant facts. First, the record shows that Mr. Hagiwara possessed several investments and assets before the case was filed. The record also shows that the corporation possessed significant assets and liabilities. Despite this evidence, the Plaintiffs have chosen to submit only a single statement from Mr. Hagiwara that his net worth has never exceeded $2 million. The record therefore raises concerns about the accuracy of this testimony. In choosing not to provide the Court with any documentation regarding the value of his assets and liabilities, Judge Sullivan holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof. At the same time, the Defendants' evidence does not establish that Mr. Hagiwara's net worth exceeded $2 million. As they concede in their opposition briefing, the administrative record contains "scant information" about Mr. Hagiwara's assets and liabilities at the time the Plaintiffs filed the case. Accordingly, Judge Sullivan orders supplemental briefing on the question of whether Mr. Hagiwara meets the EAJA's net worth requirement. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sullivan denies in part without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees as to whether Mr. Hagiwara meets the EAJA's net worth requirement; and holds in abeyance in part the Motion as to the remaining issues. The parties will meet and confer and by no later than March 17, 2023 propose a schedule for supplemental briefing. An appropriate Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y832m2jh from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Inmates' Civil Rights Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Enright, writing for York Dispatch, reports that attorneys for York County are trying to ward off a potential class-action lawsuit -- and the financial risk attached to it -- related to the alleged civil rights violations of its prison contractor, Corrections Special Applications Unit. Earlier this year, Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson quashed an attempt by the inmates' attorneys to allow for a class action, which would broaden the pool of plaintiffs to any inmate who was jailed at the facility since C-SAU began its work. Part of the problem, York County's lawyers argue, is that the amount of damage C-SAU allegedly inflicted on inmates must be considered individually rather than as a whole. "Each class member's medical records would need to be evaluated individually to determine the extent of injury, scope of treatment, causation, and existence of pre-existing conditions," attorney Matthew Clayberger wrote in his brief. "An individualized assessment also would be required with respect to any claim for psychological harm or emotional distress." C-SAU faces allegations of various inmate abuses at the county prison following its first contract with York County. In a March 2021 incident, inmates reported being forced to stand facing a wall for several hours while weapons were pointed at them. Two inmates said they were forced to walk through the prison in handcuffs with their genitals exposed. Attorneys for the inmates, who subsequently filed a lawsuit against both C-SAU and the county, alleged that C-SAU had violated the constitutional rights of inmates and turned the prison into a "militarized environment." York County ended its second agreement with C-SAU, which had been contracted to provide "confidential training" to guards at the prison, in January, months earlier than its scheduled ending in November of this year. Shortly after the county entered into its two-year, $252,770 contract with C-SAU in December 2021, inmates sued both the county and the contractor, alleging human rights abuses at the prison. As part of the county's settlement with C-SAU, York County paid $43,500 to C-SAU for what was described as additional equipment. C-SAU and its leader, Joseph C. Garcia, received a default judgment in the lawsuit for failing to respond last year. Garcia did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. According to Allegheny County Jail Warden Orlando Harper, York was one of two Pennsylvania counties that recommended C-SAU in 2021. However, Allegheny County subsequently barred its prison from contracting with C-SAU over concerns about the program and Garcia. Noelle Hanrahan, a private investigator hired by Allegheny County, called Garcia "the Bernie Madoff of correctional consultants" during an interview with The York Dispatch in 2021. The report included information about time Garcia spent in a British prison in the 1980s. "You couldn't have done an inquiry without running into problems," Hanrahan said in the 2021 interview. She added: "There were red flags on every single category that one would check in a background check." In Charleston, South Carolina, an earlier incarnation of C-SAU called the Corrections Special Organizations Group was the subject of an external investigation following the death of an inmate in January 2021. While the two officers involved in that case were never criminally charged, they were fired. The jail settled with the victim's family for $10 million. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Prelim. Injunction in Sullivan Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANE SULLIVAN; P. POES, 1-75, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public corporation; ELIZA SAUNDERS, Director of Public Records and Open Public Meetings, University of Washington, Defendants-Appellees v. PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-35338 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's order granting the University's Committee members' motion for a preliminary injunction. Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), as amended by the Food Security Act in 1985, 7 U.S.C. Section 2143; Pub. L. 99-198, 99 Stat 1354, certain research facilities that use live animals in research, tests, or experiments must maintain an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. The committee's purpose is to ensure that the research facility is in compliance with the AWA. The University of Washington is a research facility required to comply with the AWA. A vice provost of the University (as the delegatee for the University president) appoints the members of the University's Committee. The Committee holds monthly meetings that are open to the public. It makes both its meeting minutes and semi-annual reports publicly available on its website. The chair of the Committee, Jane Sullivan, and the lead veterinarian have made their identities known to the public. The other members of the Committee prefer to remain anonymous because of concerns about their personal safety and the safety of their families and pets if their names are released. Therefore, the Committee members who prefer to remain anonymous are identified in the minutes and reports only by their initials. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization opposed to the use of animals in research, filed a public records request with the University pursuant to Washington's Public Records Act (PRA). The PRA requires government agencies, including the University, to make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions listed in the statute or in another "statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure. The disclosure requirements are subject to a wide range of statutory exemptions. In addition, the Washington Supreme Court has recognized that the PRA must give way to constitutional mandates. PETA requested the letters appointing the Committee members, which include personal identifying information, such as names, email addresses, office addresses, and work affiliations. After receiving PETA's information request, Eliza Saunders (the University official responsible for responding to PETA's request) notified 55 individuals who were current, alternate, or former Committee members that the University would release their letters of appointment unless it received a court order restricting the University from releasing the records. In response, Sullivan, along with a current Committee member and a proposed class of 73 individuals who were members, alternate members, or former members of the Committee, filed a purported class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the PRA against the University and Saunders in her official capacity. The complaint alleged (among other things) that the disclosure would violate the Committee members' right of expressive association under the federal and state constitutions because the members' affiliation with each other, and with the Committee, is a form of free association and expression protected under the Constitutions of Washington and the United States. In addition, the complaint sought an injunction and declaratory judgment on the grounds that the letters of appointment are exempt from disclosure under the PRA because their disclosure would violate the federal and state constitutions. The members also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the University from releasing the letters of appointment. The University did not oppose the TRO or preliminary injunction. After granting the Committee members' motion for a TRO, the district court granted PETA's motion to intervene, and, over PETA's opposition, granted the Committee members' motion for a preliminary injunction. It determined that the Committee members raised a serious question as to whether disclosure would violate their First Amendment right of expressive association, which would allow them to claim an exception to the disclosure requirements of the PRA. PETA filed a timely interlocutory appeal. On appeal, PETA challenges the district court's determination that there were serious questions on the merits as to whether disclosure of the members' letters of appointment would violate their right of expressive association under the First Amendment. It argues that the district court erred in holding that this First Amendment right might exempt the University from the PRA's requirement to disclose the requested letters. The Ninth Circuit opines that because the Committee members' association is pursuant to their official duties and not any private expressive activities, it is not protected by the First Amendment right of expressive association. The Committee members may be engaged as individuals in other activities that are expressive in nature. But the letters of appointment relate to the Committee members' service on an official committee, and such an activity is not protected by the right of expressive association. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit holds that the University's disclosure of the Committee members' letters of appointment pursuant to the PRA would not impermissibly burden any First Amendment right of expressive association. Because the district court made a legal error in concluding that, by serving on the Committee, the members were thereby engaged in that First Amendment protected activity, it abused its discretion. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdehrbjx from Leagle.com. Peter D. Hawkes -- peter@angelilaw.com -- (argued), Angeli Law Group LLC, Portland, Oregon, for the Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. Darwin P. Roberts -- peter@angelilaw.com -- (argued), Goldfarb & Huck Roth Riojas PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for the Plaintiffs-Appellees. Jessica L. Creighton and Nancy S. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Washington Attorney General's Office, University of Washington Division, Seattle, Washington, for the Defendants-Appellees. Ashley Ridgway and Christopher Berry, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Cotati, California, for Amicus Curiae Animal Legal Defense Fund. Katie B. Townsend, Adam A. Marshall, and Gunita Singh, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 16 Media Organizations. VENICE MOTORS: Gardner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Blake Gardner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VENICE MOTORS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Venice Toyota, Case No. 8:23-cv-00433 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs from the Defendant. The Defendant hires lube technicians and offer to pay them the flag rate method of payment that automobile dealerships typically pay to its service technicians. Despite purportedly paying its lube technicians a more lucrative flag rate, upon examination of Plaintiff's pay records, it is clear that Plaintiff and other similarly situated lube technicians are only paid a set hourly rate for all hours worked and are not, in fact, paid via the flag rate method. There are several other similarly situated individuals who were hired as lube technicians, worked overtime, and were paid a non-flag hour hourly rate for all hours worked without being paid overtime compensation, and who would be interested in joining this action if they were notified of the same. The Defendant's pay practices violate the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, the requisite overtime wage, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an automobile lube technician. VENICE MOTORS LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company doing business in Sarasota County, Florida, which owns and operates the Venice Toyota automobile dealership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Phone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com VILLA ROMA RESORT: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villa Roma Resort Catskill Mountains LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Villa Roma Resort Catskill Mountains LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01647 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Villa Roma Resort Catskill Mountains LLC -- https://villaroma.com/ -- is a Roman-themed resort in the Catskill mountains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal WILTON REASSURANCE: Bella Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilton Reassurance Life of New York. The case is styled as Florence Bella, as trustee of the Yismach Lev 1 Trust, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wilton Reassurance Life of New York, Case No. 1:23-cv-01613 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. Wilton Reassurance -- https://www.wiltonre.com/ -- is a leading provider of in force and reinsurance solutions in the North American life insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Christopher Kirkpatrick, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP (NYC) 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 336-8330 Fax: (212) 336-8340 Email: rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Settlement Claims Filing Due Set April 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that the settlement benefits consumers who purchased certain XTEND products from Woodbolt or through third-party sellers, including Amazon, between July 28, 2014, and Jan. 24, 2023. A full list of covered products is available on the settlement website. Status: In progress Metague, et al. v. Woodbolt Distribution LLC File a Claim Deadline to file a claim: 04/24/2023 Proof of Purchase Required: Yes Potential Individual Reward: Up to $50 total Total Settlement Amount: $3 million Nationwide Plaintiffs in the false advertising class action lawsuit accused Woodbolt of misleading customers by promising that XTEND products have "0 calories." Despite these claims, supported by the Atwater calorie calculation method, testing of the products allegedly showed the products were not zero calories as promised. XTEND workout powders offer hydration, recovery and protein benefits to active consumers. The products come in a number of flavors. Woodbolt hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3 million class action settlement to resolve these false advertising allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive $0.50 per purchased package. Class members who have proof of purchase can claim up to 100 products, for a maximum payment of $50 per household. Those without proof of purchase can claim up to 50 products, for a maximum payment of $25 per household. Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Woodbolt agreed to modify its XTEND labeling and website to better reflect the way it calculates calories in its products. This updated language will inform customers that different calorie calculation methods may have different results. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 24, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May 31, 2023. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 24, 2023. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits consumers who purchased certain XTEND products from Woodbolt or through third-party sellers, including Amazon, between July 28, 2014, and Jan. 24, 2023. A full list of included products is available on the settlement website. Potential Award $0.50 per purchased product -- up to $50 total with proof of purchase or up to $25 total without proof of purchase. Proof of Purchase Receipts or other documentation of purchases are not required but can result in higher payments. Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 04/24/2023 Case Name Metague, et al. v. Woodbolt Distribution LLC, Case No. 8:20- cv-02186-PX, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Final Hearing 05/31/2023 Settlement Website XTENDCalorieSettlement.com Claims Administrator Metague v. Woodbolt c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 info@XtendCalorieSettlement.com 833-709-0897 Class Counsel Nicholas Migliaccio MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP Aaron Rihn ROBERT PIERCE & ASSOCIATES PC Defense Counsel Geoffrey W Castello KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP [GN] [*] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! --------------------------------------------------------------- Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8th, 2023. This value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and networking with other professionals. This year's conference sponsors are: * Premier Sponsor: Citibank * Major Sponsors: Baird Mandalas Brockstedt Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A. * Patron Sponsors: Huntington * Advocate Sponsors: Atticus Battea Class Action Services Simpluris Interested in becoming a speaker in May? Contact: Bernard Toliver, CMP (240) 629-3300 ext. 149 E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com Visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc. [*] Duane Morris LLP Publishes 2023 Privacy Class Action Review --------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Morris LLP has released the Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review - 2023, the inaugural edition of this annual publication. It analyzes the key privacy-related rulings, settlements and litigation developments in 2022 and the significant trends that are apt to impact these types of class actions in 2023. Written by Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley and Alex W. Karasik, the Privacy Class Action Review - 2023 reflects a broad array of "lessons learned" from their extensive experience in defending privacy class action litigation throughout the United States. "Privacy class action litigation ranks near the top of the list of issues that keep corporate counsel up at night," says Maatman. "The significant stakes in these cases and the evolving legal landscape in privacy class action rulings and legislation make the defense of privacy class actions a challenge for corporations." Karasik comments that the review offers analysis on recent decisions rendered in the past two weeks by the Illinois Supreme Court on the Biometric Information Protection Act (BIPA), which clarified that a five-year statute of limitations is applicable to the BIPA in Tims, et al. v. Black Horse Carriers, Case No. 127801 (Feb. 2, 2023) and decided that each fingerprint scan is its own discrete violation in Cothron, et al. v. White Castle Systems, 2023 IL 1280004 (Ill. Feb. 17, 2023). Karasik indicates that "the impact of the two new decisions could exponentially increase monetary damages in BIPA class actions, especially in the employment context, where employees scan in and out of work multiple times per day for over 200 workdays days per year." Riley opines that privacy litigation, in a multitude of forms and theories, revealed itself as the hottest area of growth in terms of activity by the plaintiffs' class action bar in the past 12 months. While the BIPA continued to drive lawsuits in Illinois, a new wave of wiretapping violation lawsuits targeted companies that use technologies to track user activity on their websites, based on the theory that such practices violate electronic interception provisions of various state laws when done without consent. And while the U.S. Congress has refrained from addressing data privacy through federal legislation, many states have enacted their own laws. Last year saw significant state legislative activity regarding data privacy, with five states preparing for new privacy laws to take effect in 2023, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia. Riley asserts that "companies can expect an exponential increase in these types of class actions in 2023." Manifesting the collective knowledge of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group and over 70 years' combined class action experience of our editors, the Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review - 2023 is designed to serve as an essential desktop reference for corporate counsel and business decision-makers to identify privacy risks, implement strategies to mitigate those risks, and best understand the significant monetary exposure for organizations that face a legal challenge regarding these risks. About Duane Morris Duane Morris LLP provides innovative solutions to today's multifaceted legal and business challenges through the collegial and collaborative culture of its more than 900 attorneys in offices across the United States and internationally. The firm represents a broad array of clients, spanning all major practices and industries. Duane Morris has been recognized by BTI Consulting as both a client service leader and a highly recommended law firm. [GN] [*] Mintz Attorneys Discuss Rulings in BIPA Class Action Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam B. Korn, Esq., Sebastian A. Navarro, Esq., and Todd Rosenbaum, Esq., of Mintz, disclosed that the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), enacted in 2008, was one of the first state laws to address commercial collection of biometric data. Biometric data includes an iris scan, a fingerprint, a voiceprint, or a scan of hand or face geometry. Moreover, BIPA contains a comprehensive set of privacy protections, including requiring informed consent prior to collection of biometric data, a limited right to disclose biometric data, and most significantly, a private right of action for individuals aggrieved by BIPA violations. For such aggrieved individuals, BIPA provides statutory damages up to $1,000 for each negligent violation and up to $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. The private cause of action permitted by BIPA was largely inconsequential for companies after the statute's enactment. But that changed in 2019 when the Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. held that a plaintiff can be considered an "aggrieved person" under BIPA and therefore entitled to statutory damages without alleging an actual injury. In other words, the Court held that a party does not need to have suffered a tangible or monetary injury in order to recover under BIPA; damages are presumed in the case of a BIPA violation. Unsurprisingly, this led to a significant uptick in BIPA lawsuits, including a class action lawsuit against Facebook in 2020 alleging the company collected biometric data without users' consent, in connection with which Facebook agreed to a $650 million settlement, one of the largest consumer privacy settlements in U.S. history. Similarly, in October 2022, the first-ever BIPA class action jury trial led to a $228 million dollar verdict. There is no sign that these massive BIPA verdicts and settlements will slow down. In fact, in February 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. addressed the critical question of how long the statute of limitations for BIPA claims lasts. BIPA does not expressly provide a statute of limitations period; the plaintiffs argued that a five-year catchall limitation period provided in another Illinois statute should apply to all claims, whereas the defendants argued that a one-year limitation period for publication of private material should apply to all BIPA claims. The court held that BIPA claims other than those relating to publication are subject to a five-year statute of limitations in part due to the legislature's intent to greater regulate privacy consumer privacy. Moreover, the court held that a longer statutory period also comports with public safety aims by allowing aggrieved individuals sufficient time to discover a violation and file an action. In February 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. further expanded actionable claims under BIPA by clarifying that BIPA claims accrue each time biometric data is unlawfully collected and disclosed. This has the potential to significantly increase damages due to BIPA's language permitting liquidated damages for "each violation" of the statute, although the Court noted that a trial court may exercise its discretion in fashioning an award to prevent damages that would result in "financial destruction of a business." See our Mintz Privacy blog post discussing Cothron in detail here. Although Illinois is the only state that currently has enacted comprehensive biometric privacy laws, several other states, including California, have statutory privacy protections in place. The California Consumer Privacy Right Act (CCPA), enacted in 2018, was the first step in California's ramp-up of its privacy statutes. The CCPA created new protections for consumers, including the right to know about personal information collected by businesses and the right to opt out of such collection. In 2020, California voters approved the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which expanded upon the protections in the CCPA, including the right to limit the use and disclosure of consumers' "personal information" collected by businesses, including biometric information. As of January 1, 2023, the CCPA, as amended by the CPRA, permits consumers to recover damages between $100 and $750 per incident involving a data breach or disclosure of personal information due to a business's failure to take reasonable measures to protect consumer data. Also pursuant to the amended CCPA, California established a new regulatory agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency, to enforce California's privacy laws under the CCPA and CPRA. This is the first government agency in the United States dedicated to enforcing data privacy laws. Significantly, the agency is charged with creating new regulations to require businesses "whose processing of consumers' personal information presents significant risk to consumers' privacy or security" to perform detailed annual cybersecurity audits. Further, the CPRA grants the Agency the power to assess administrative fines up to $7,500 for each violation of the CPRA. While not as comprehensive as BIPA, California's privacy statutes underscore the need for businesses to take privacy considerations seriously. Nine other states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland, have recently introduced biometric legislation. Nearly all of these states modeled their biometric legislation after BIPA, including providing a private right of action and allowing plaintiffs to recover of statutory damages. Several states have expanded upon the protections included in BIPA. Massachusetts' legislation, for example, provides larger damages awards in class actions by setting damages at "no less than $5,000 per violation." Maryland's legislation permits the state attorney general to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation in addition to a including a private right of action. While it may take several more years for other states to adopt comprehensive biometric privacy laws such as BIPA, public demand for increased privacy regulations could make that day come sooner. The evolving legal landscape around data privacy should encourage data holders to regularly assess their practices concerning the use of consumer data. If you have any questions about your data collection and use policies, or need to develop and implement such policies, contact the Mintz Privacy Team. [GN] [*] New Wave of Class Suits Target Voice Authentication Technology ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eversheds Sutherland attorneys highlight a new wave of class action complaints tied to voice authentication technology, cautioning companies to pay attention to consent, notice, and security requirements of CIPA, BIPA, and other state laws. For years, banks, insurance companies, and other consumer-facing institutions have deployed voice authentication technology to ensure security and privacy of conversations with customers who call for help. Starting last year, a few plaintiffs' law firms have tried to turn those companies' well-intended efforts on their head, filing putative class action lawsuits alleging that use of biometric voice recording technology violates a decades-old section of California's Invasion of Privacy Act. These complaints generally assert that defendant companies are recording and examining caller voiceprints to determine the truth or falsity of callers' statements, without first securing callers' express written consent. Plaintiffs have targeted companies that record calls, particularly those that use voiceprint technology or other biometrics. The complaints seek statutory damages of $1,000 per violation on behalf of each member of the proposed classes of California residents. It remains to be seen whether these high-exposure complaints can survive a motion to dismiss. Penal Code Provision Since the late 1970s, a little-known CIPA provision -- intended to address lie detector technology -- sat dormant. The California Penal Code's § 637.3(a) prohibits a person or entity from using "any system which examines or records in any manner voice prints or other voice stress patterns of another person to determine the truth or falsity of statements made by such person" without express written consent "in advance of the examination or recordation." Under this provision, "any person who has been injured by a violator of this section may bring an action against the violator" for actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater. The complaints filed under this statute alleged that voiceprint authentication technology that records a voiceprint, and later compares a caller's voice to that voiceprint to authenticate their identity violates § 637.3 because it determines the truth or falsity of a caller's statements. Suits on the Rise This new wave is part of a larger trend in biometric privacy cases as similar suits regarding consumer's voiceprints have also been filed against various businesses under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Although the CIPA voice authentication theory of liability is still quite novel, defendant companies have presented several defenses in motions to dismiss the complaints. These include arguing that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury-in-fact, and that some plaintiffs provided their express, written consent to the defendant's use of their voiceprint. Additionally, defendants may consider drawing the statutory intent behind § 637.3 to a court's attention early in the litigation. When passed in 1978, § 637.3 was legislators' response to concerns that inaccurate and faulty lie detector and polygraph machines were being used to capture the public's voiceprints and voice stress patterns to test the truth or falsity of their statements without prior consent. Although the original intent of the provision at issue was to prevent surreptitious voice recording and analysis for lie detection purposes, plaintiffs are now repurposing it to attack modern technology that safeguards consumer's accounts. Court Activity Initial court decisions on motions to dismiss these novel § 637.3 claims are expected to trickle out this year. In the first of such opinions, a court in the Southern District of California rejected the plaintiff's § 637.3 claim, seizing on the considerable gap between the conduct the statute was designed to regulate and the plaintiff's allegations. In Balanzar v. Fidelity Brokerage Servs., the plaintiff argued that the defendant's authentication system assessed the truth or falsity of the identity of the caller and, thus, violated the § 637.3. But the court disagreed. Instead, because the defendant's software was alleged to capture and store a caller's voiceprint to compare it with the voiceprint of subsequent callers and verify a caller's identity without requiring the caller to make any affirmative statements, the court found the technology more akin to a biometric passcode than a lie detector. Accordingly, the court dismissed without prejudice the plaintiff's class claims for failing to sufficiently allege that the defendant's authentication system determined the truth or falsity of any statements. Whether and how the plaintiff in Balanzar will address the pleading deficiencies noted by that court remains to be seen. Other courts are considering similar motion to dismiss arguments. Of course, this is not the first time plaintiffs' attorneys have re-cast old laws to try to regulate the use of new technology in an attempt to recover windfalls under statutory damages provisions. Plaintiffs have used a different section of CIPA, as well as other states' statutes, to try to hold companies liable for their use of session replay software. Plaintiffs have filed dozens of putative class actions, primarily in, but not limited to, California and Pennsylvania, alleging that use of software to analyze a consumer's interaction with a website violates state anti-wiretapping statutes. Those laws were originally enacted for the express purposes of preventing the recording or eavesdropping of phone calls. The legal defenses to these voiceprint technology claims appear strong. Nonetheless, in light of the prospect of significant statutory damages in a class setting, plaintiffs will continue to seek ways to exploit CIPA and other state statutes for conduct that goes beyond the original intent of statutory protections. Companies that use call recordings, and particularly those using voiceprint technology, should consider the consent, notice, and security requirements of CIPA, BIPA, and other state laws. This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners. Melissa Fox is counsel at Eversheds Sutherland, where she represents clients on a variety of business and commercial litigation matters, including financial services, securities litigation and enforcement, and professional liability. Christine Johnson is an associate at Eversheds Sutherland, advising clients on all aspects of complex commercial litigation, with a focus on business disputes and class action defense. Francis Nolan is a partner at Eversheds Sutherland. He represents companies in class action and commercial litigation, arbitrates domestic and international disputes, and counsels on pre-litigation and compliance. [GN] [] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! -------------------------------------------------------------- Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8th, 2023. This value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and networking with other professionals. This year's conference sponsors are: * Premier Sponsor: Citibank * Major Sponsors: Baird Mandalas Brockstedt Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A. * Patron Sponsors: Huntington * Advocate Sponsors: Atticus Battea Class Action Services Simpluris Interested in becoming a speaker in May? Contact: Bernard Toliver, CMP (240) 629-3300 ext. 149 E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com Visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***