/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230310.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 10, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 51 Headlines 80STEES.COM INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AARGON AGENCY INC: Knopfler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York AETNA INC: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Lutz Suit AETNA INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Chiropractors Suit ALLSTATE HOME LEISURE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Remand Order in Stelman Suit to 9th Cir. AMERICAN CAR CENTER: Johnson Sues Over WARN Act Violation APPLE INC: Alvarez Sues Over Misappropriated User Information APPLE INC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Appointed in Barrett Class Suit ARCHIPELAGO INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Jamison Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Defers Bid for Partial Judgment in Nacif Suit BAIRES VALET PARKING: Jesus Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida BETTERHELP INC: Class Action Probe After $7.8M FTC Fine BLOCKFI INC: Faces Elas Suit Over Unlawful Cryptocurrency Scheme BLUE SKY ENVIRONMENTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BSH HOME: Faces Hedrick Suit Over Mislabeled Gas Stoves BUILD REALTY: Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel in Named Compound Suit C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Jacobowitz Sues Over Unlawfully Disclosed Debt CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cvijic Alleges CAKE ART INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARVE MEDIA INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CELEBRITY HOME: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violation CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Pudder Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over ERISA Violations COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Remand Order in Zortea Suit to 3rd Cir. CREATIVE SNACKS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DARWIN AND WALLACE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DAVIE MOTORSPORT: Mallaguare Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida DELIVERED USA INC: Brummett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOMINIC HEALTH: Boswell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Settlement Claims Filing Due Set April 11 DRONE NERDS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ECONOMIST MICHIGAN: Privacy Settlement Claims Filing Due April 12 ENVISION CREDIT: Breach Final Settlement Approval Heard on Apr. 13 ESSENTIA HEALTH: Okash Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII and PHI ESSENTIAL SERVICES: D'Arcy Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Defective Engines GACO WESTERN: Bid for Leave to Amend Feamster Class Suit Denied GLEN MILLS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Derrick's Claims v. CCIU GROUP HEALTH: Tapp Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info to Third Party GUIDA-SEIBERT DAIRY: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Gould Suit HAAS GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Magee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HANESBRANDS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins Alleges HARBORONE BANK: Meaden Sues Over Improper Charges HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HATTS OFF: Faces $60M Class Action Over Alleged Child Abuse HOFF USA CORP: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Customers' Privacy Violations HUNTER WARFIELD: Karr Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida HYUNDAI MOTOR: Antilock Brake Settlement Claims Filing Due July 7 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Lawyers Not Backing Off Immobilizers Class Action ICARE ACQUISITION: Data Breach Settlement Claims Filing Due May 1 ICON OUTDOORS LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ISLIDE INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ISOLVED HCM: BIPA Suit Settlement Claims Filing Due April 11 JACOBSON GROUP (USA): Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JAMES + JAMES LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LA FERMIERE: Piotroski Sues Over Yogurt's French Representations LONGFIN CORP: Court Orders Release of Funds in Securities Suit LOWE'S HOME: Summary Judgment Bid in Rodrigue Class Suit Granted MANAGEMENT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Koutsofios Alleges MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Gignac v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Graifman v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Imhof v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Lofton v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud META PLATFORMS: Ill. Users Set to Receive 2nd Lawsuit Settlement MIC GENERAL: Loughran Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Franklin Suit MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Final Deal OK in Antitrust Suit Set on June 1 MONTEREY BAY: Faces Class Suit Over "Red Listing" American Lobsters NORTHWESTERN BUSINESS: Illegally Withheld College Transcripts OHIO: Northern District Court Dismisses Lenz v. Chambers-Smith, APA ORIGINAL SOFT: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Donet Suit Says PARALLAX MANAGEMENT: Parker Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages PEPLINSKI GROUP: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Skinner Suit Claims RBC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Holiday, Vacation REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Health Info, Ramos Alleges REHOBOTH MCKINLEY: Data Breach Settlement Claims Filing Due May 9 RHENIUM ALLOYS: Faces Simpson Suit Over Assembly Workers' Unpaid OT RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: C.D. Cal. Dismisses Securities Class Action ROYAL BANK: Faces Another Class Suit Over Unpaid Holiday Pay RUBY HOLLOW: Bid to Disqualify Parr Brown in McGowan Suit Denied SCION GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burton Alleges SENIOR LINK: Zelaya Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Caregivers SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: TCPA Settlement Claims Filing Due Set May 10 SPAIN: Faces Suit From Environmental Societies Over Sustainability STATEWIDE RESTORATION: Faces Valencia Wage & Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SUMMIT UTILITIES: Faces Class-Action Over Billing Practices SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Teche Farm Says TAP BTOWN: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Inman FLSA Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bixby Class Suit Granted UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Diaz v. HUD for Lack of Jurisdiction UNITED STATES: CPW Votes to Join PFAS Class Action Lawsuit URBAN CITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Castillo Suit Alleges VEE PAK: Court Grants Bid for Class Certification in Eagle Suit VEON LTD: Court Maintains Lead Plaintiff Order in Securities Suit VERIFF INC: BIPA Suit Settlement Claims Filing Due on April 21 VINA BEVERAGES: Donet Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website WE EAT HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gombash Alleges WEEK PUBLICATIONS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $5-Mil. WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Settlement Claims Filing Due Set April 24 YALE UNIVERSITY: Michel Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit [*] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! [*] Auto Part Company Reaches Settlement in FCRA Class Action [] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now! Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 170 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Still Receives Asbestos & Environment Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Inc. Faces Asbestos Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 227 Pending Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Faces Numerous Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Lists $95MM Est. Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Still Faces Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp.'s Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $105MM Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Has $54.5MM Net A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Defends 440 Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 547 PI Lawsuits as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Faces 4,054 Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 21,580 Pending Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $51MM Reserves as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.31BB Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Still Faces Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Estimates $79MM Liability at Dec. 31 ********* 80STEES.COM INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 80sTees.com, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 80sTees.com, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01719 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 80sTees.com -- https://www.80stees.com/ -- is an online retailer of licensed t-shirts from your favorite movies, TV shows, cartoons, videogames, comic books, and musicians.[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 AARGON AGENCY INC: Knopfler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Aargon Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Chaya Knopfler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aargon Agency, Inc. doing business as: Aargon Collection Agency, Case No. 2:23-cv-01169 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Aargon Agency, Inc. doing business as 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: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com AETNA INC: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Lutz Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LUTZ SURGICAL PARTNERS PLLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. AETNA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-2595-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies: a. the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and b. Aetna's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports. Before the Court is Plaintiffs Lutz Surgical Partners PLLC and NYC Corrective Chiropractic Care, P.C.'s Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. Also before this Court is Defendants Aetna, Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Co.'s (together, "Aetna") Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports filed in further support of their Motion for Class Certification. All motions are opposed. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(a), the Court heard oral argument on Aug. 29, 2017, reserved its decision, and permitted supplemental briefing post-argument. The Plaintiffs are healthcare providers that provide in-patient surgical services in Lutz, Florida. They do not have a contractual relationship with Aetna and are therefore considered out-of-network ("ONET") providers. Aetna is a healthcare insurer and administrator of various fully-insured and self-insured health benefit plans. For fully-insured plans, it pays for claims out of their own fund and collects a premium from the plan's sponsor. For self-insured plans, it also pays for claims out of their own fund, but collects an administrative fee and is reimbursed for claim payments from the plan's sponsor. Because a high volume of claims is processed every day, Aetna contends it consequently and occasionally overpays healthcare providers for services rendered in treating patients. When overpayments are identified, Aetna notifies the appropriate provider by letter and requests a refund for the overpaid amount. The letter states that if Aetna does not receive confirmation concerning a payment or receive a refund check, it may deduct the overpayment amount from provider's next claim payment. If the provider does not dispute the overpayment, Aetna offsets the overpaid amount by reducing a future payment issued to the provider. The Plaintiffs challenge Aetna's recovery policy. According to them, Aetna's recovery policy permits "cross-plan" offsets by withholding "amounts allegedly overpaid to providers on behalf of Plan A (for services rendered to Plan A insureds) from payments due to providers of Plan B benefits (for services provided to Plan B insureds). According to Aetna, however, offsets are processed with thousands of rules affecting validation and recovery for overpayments, and vary plan-to-plan, provider-to-provider, and claim-to-claim. The Plaintiffs allege "cross-plan" offsets violate Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), and constitute a wrongful denial of benefits because healthcare providers treating patients with Plan B benefits never actually receive full payment from the Plan B policy. They seek injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3), asking the Court to: (1) enjoin Aetna from continuing "cross-plan" offsets; (2) declare the action illegal; and (3) grant other appropriate equitable relief. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a single class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(2), or (b)(3) based on the following proposed class definition: All persons who sought a health insurance benefit payment from an Aetna health insurance plan governed by ERISA, for covered services rendered by an ONET provider, but Aetna withheld all or a portion of such benefit payment in order to recover a prior alleged overpayment made to the same ONET provider for covered services rendered to a different patient insured under a different plan. Judge Martinotti first examines the Motion to Strike. Aetna argues the Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports, filed with its Reply Brief in further support of its Motion for Class Certification, should be stricken because Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports: (1) do not rebut Aetna's expert; and (2) introduce new theories of damages unrelated to Aetna's expert and not previously disclosed during discovery. The Plaintiffs argue their experts' opinions: (1) offer a proper rebuttal to Aetna's expert; and (2) provide adequate theories of relief that never mislead Aetna. Judge Martinotti has reviewed the expert reports and finds, for the purpose of this motion, that any alleged failure to disclose is harmless. The challenged reports were not relied on in reaching this decision, and therefore, the extreme sanction of excluding evidence is not warranted. Nothing contained therein would have led the Court to a different decision. Accordingly, Aetna's Motion to Strike is denied. Judge Martinotti now turns to the Motion for Class Certification. He states that class certification is only appropriate if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are met. Rule 23 contains two sets of requirements. First, a party seeking class certification must demonstrate the class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The court will only certify a class when all four requirements are met. Moreover, in addition to the Rule 23(a) requirements, class certification is only appropriate if the putative class qualifies under one of the Rule 23(b) subsections. Lastly, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be maintained if common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual class members and the class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the matter. Before determining whether the Rule 23 requirements are met, Judge Martinotti must first analyze whether the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is readily ascertainable based on objective criteria. He finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the ascertainability requirement. The class definition is comprised of objective criteria and factors, which are capable of being ascertained. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated the proposed class members are ascertainable through a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism. Next, Judge Martinotti turns to the Rule 23(a) requirements. He finds that (i) Aetna does not contest the satisfaction of the numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a)(1); (ii) the common answer to the factual question of whether Aetna violated ERISA by allegedly engaging in "cross-plan" offsets is sufficient to advance the resolution of the entire class; (iii) the claims arise out of the same course of conduct and are based on the same legal theory; and (iv) Aetna does not contest the adequacy of the Plaintiffs or the class counsel. After meeting the threshold requirements of Rule 23(a), Judge Martinotti must determine whether the proposed class action fits within one of the Rule 23(b) class action types. First, based on the record before the Court, he opines that the record does not support a finding that separate lawsuits would result in incompatible standards of conduct for Aetna. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not met their burden in demonstrating certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is appropriate. Second, Judge Martinotti opines that because ERISA mandates administrators operate in accordance with the plan documents, the issue of whether Aetna's offset practice was unauthorized relies heavily on the varying language and terms in the plan documents for each individualized plan. Due to the multiple plan sponsors and multiple, varying benefit plan agreements, the factual distinctions among the plans do not satisfy the cohesiveness requirement under Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class under a Rule 23(b)(2) is denied. Third, Judge Martinotti opines that in light of the numerous individualized issues that arise from the Plaintiffs' claims, the question of law or fact does not predominate. He finds that (i) the issue of whether benefits among several different plans were wrongfully denied relies on the individualized plan language; (ii) the issue of whether Aetna's offset practice was unauthorized relies heavily on the varying language and terms in the plan documents for each individualized plan; (iii) a class-wide resolution would require an examination of each administrative services contract between the plan sponsors and Aetna to establish the extent of Aetna's liability and scope of duty as a fiduciary; (iv) the variability among contractual agreements plan sponsors have with Aetna would require an individualized approach to determine whether Aetna effectuated its recovery policy to avoid liability; and (v) the Plaintiffs fail to cite an authority relating ERISA claims to common law setoff requirements. Judge Martinotti, having reviewed the Plaintiffs' arguments in support of Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, finds questions of law or fact purported to be common to the members of the class do not predominate over questions affecting individual members. For similar reasons, he finds a class action would not be a superior manner of resolving the claims. Thus, the Plaintiffs' class claims do not constitute the best available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class under a Rule 23(b)(3) is denied. Finally, in the alternative to certification under the Rule 23(b) subsections, the Plaintiffs argue class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(c)(4). However, Judge Martinotti opines that while the Plaintiffs have may satisfied some of the Rule 23(a) requirements, he has found class certification is improper under Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3), and in doing so, found the Plaintiffs' proposed common questions do not warrant a class-wide resolution. Indeed, the five common issues proposed by the Plaintiffs still leave a host of individualized issues to be resolved and, therefore, certifying a class will not materially advance resolution of the class members' claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class under Rule 23(c)(4) is denied. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti denies Aetna's Motion to Strike and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class. An appropriate order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3d3tc6f4 from Leagle.com. AETNA INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Chiropractors Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY CHIROPRACTORS, et al., Plaintiffs v. AETNA, INC., et al., Defendants. TRI3 ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AETNA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 09-3761-BRM-TJB, 11-3921-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Plaintiffs' joint Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. Before the Court are two separate actions filing a joint Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. The first action was filed in 2009 by Plaintiff Association of New Jersey Chiropractors ("ANJC"). The second action was filed in 2011 by Plaintiffs WMI Enterprises, LLC ("WMI") and Tri3 Enterprises, LLC ("Tri3 LLC") (collectively, "Tri3") (together with ANJC, "Plaintiffs"). Defendants Aetna, Inc., Aetna Health Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Co., Corporate Health Insurance Co., and Aetna Insurance Co. of Connecticut (collectively, "Aetna") oppose the Motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(a), the Court heard oral argument on Aug. 29, 2017, reserved its decision, and permitted supplemental briefing post-argument. Aetna is an administrator of health benefit plans for plan participants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Members' plan. The Plaintiffs are medical providers who submitted claims for payment to Aetna for services rendered to Aetna's Members. They are comprised of in-network providers ("Par Providers") and outof-network providers ("Nonpar Providers"). Par Providers are medical providers who contract with Aetna to treat Aetna's Members in exchange for accepting a reduced fee. Conversely, Nonpar Providers are medical providers who do not contract with Aetna. However, some Nonpar Providers join third-party provider networks, e.g., Par Providers, who have entered into a separate contractual agreement with Aetna. According to Aetna, in an effort to detect and prevent payment of claims resulting from fraud, waste, or abuse, Aetna established a Special Investigations Unit ("SIU"). Its SIU investigates suspicious claims submitted by medical providers both before claims are paid ("Pre-payment Review") and after claims are paid ("Post-payment Review"). The Plaintiffs, however, challenge certain policies and procedures of Aetna's SIU. Specifically, they challenge Aetna's compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") with respect to the following two distinct aspects of Aetna' claims process: (1) the Explanation of Benefits forms ("EOB") sent to providers by Aetna's SIU following Pre-payment Review; and (2) the overpayment recovery letters sent to providers by Aetna's SIU following Post-payment Review. According to the Plaintiffs, Aetna's SIU employs investigators and field analysts who identify certain providers using "flags" ("Provider Flags") in order to initiate the Pre-payment Review process for claims submitted by those flagged providers. When any Provider Flag is triggered, claims are diverted away from Aetna's usual automated adjudication process and directed to a field analyst.Field analysts are responsible for Pre-payment Review and for making a payment determination on the claim submitted by the flagged provider. (Id.) One of the Provider Flags, the OVRUTIL flag, is allegedly a catch-all flag expanding multiple categories, resulting in the automatic denial of a provider's claims. Once the OVRUTIL flag is triggered, Aetna sends providers and Members an EOB (the "OVRUTIL EOB"), describing the services rendered and Aetna's resolution of the claim submitted. The Plaintiffs argue Aetna's OVRUTIL Provider Flags and Overpayment Letters constitute wrongful denials of benefits in violation of Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), and that benefits were wrongfully denied because the content in the OVRUTIL EOBs and the Overpayment Letters failed to satisfy the minimum procedural notice and appeal requirements under Section 503 of ERISA. As a remedy, they request: (1) prior claim denials and overpayment determinations to be remanded to Aetna for full and fair review; and (2) injunctive relief to enforce ERISA's notice and appeal requirements for all future claim denials and overpayment determinations. Specifically, the Plaintiffs first request previously denied claims be remanded to Aetna based on the violation of Section 503 so that the affected plan Members—or their lawful assignees— may receive the benefit of a full and fair review. Significantly, they do not challenge the underlying merits of each and every benefit denial caused by an Overpayment Letter or OVRUTIL Provider Flag. Second, they seek injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 502(a)(3), asking this Court to: (1) declare the Overpayment Letters and OVRUTIL Provider Flag denials to be adverse benefit denials ("ABD"); (2) enjoin Aetna from issuing future OVRUTIL Provider Flags and Overpayment Letters without properly complying with ERISA's notice and appeal requirements; and (3) grant any other equitable relief. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class ("Provider Flag Class"), along with two subclasses, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) or (b)(2) based on the following proposed class definition: All healthcare providers (such as individual practitioners, durable equipment suppliers, or facilities) who, from six (6) years prior to the original filing date of these actions to their final termination (Class Period): (1) received reimbursement from Aetna pursuant to an employer-sponsored benefit plan governed by ERISA; and (2) received benefit denials based on the following SIU Provider Flag: OVRUTIL. This class has two sub-classes: (1) providers who were, at the time they rendered the services in question, Par providers (Par Providers Subclass); and (2) providers who were at the time rendered the services in question, Nonpar providers (Nonpar Providers Subclass). The Plaintiffs also seek to certify a class ("Overpayment Letter Class"), along with two subclasses, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2) based on the following proposed class definition: All healthcare providers (such as individual practitioners, durable equipment suppliers, or facilities) who, from six (6) years prior to the original filing date of these actions to their final termination (Class Period): (1) received reimbursement from Aetna pursuant to an employer-sponsored benefit plan governed by ERISA; and (2) after having received benefit payments from Aetna were sent an SIU Overpayment Letter from some or all of those payments. Judge Martinotti explains that class certification is only appropriate if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are met. Rule 23 contains two sets of requirements. First, a party seeking class certification must demonstrate the class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The court will only certify a class when all four requirements are met. Additionally, Judge Martinotti notes that the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that these requirements are met in order to rule in favor of class certification. Moreover, in addition to the Rule 23(a) requirements, class certification is only appropriate if the putative class qualifies under one of the Rule 23(b) subsections. As to Rule 23(a) requirements, Judge Martinotti finds that (i) the numerosity requirement is satisfied for the Overpayment Letter Class and Provider Flag Class; (ii) common answer to the factual question of whether Aetna's Provider Flags failed to satisfy the minimum procedural requirements under ERISA is sufficient to advance the resolution of the entire class; (iii) a common answer to the factual question of whether Aetna's Overpayment Letters must satisfy the minimum procedural requirements under ERISA is sufficient to advance the resolution of the entire class; (iv) the Plaintiffs face several hurdles in demonstrating typicality; and (v) he is not persuaded Miliano will adequately protect the interests of the class. As to Rule 23(b)(1)(A) requirements, Judge Martinotti finds that separate lawsuits would not result in varying determinations because Aetna's OVRUTIL EOBs are ABDs, and therefore must comply with ERISA's notice requirements. To the extent the Plaintiffs argue a single action is necessary to prevent the risk of inconsistent adjudications, he says multiple lawsuits and judgments will not change the governing standard—compliance with ERISA requirements. Because the Provider Flag and resulting OVRUTIL EOB constitute an ABD, it is unlikely one court will require Aetna to comply with ERISA's notice requirements, while another court allows Aetna to violate ERISA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Provider Flag Class under a Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is denied. Judge Martinotti also finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden in demonstrating class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), and he does not agree multiple lawsuits would result in inconsistent adjudications. He says while some Plaintiffs may be unsuccessful in their suits, this is not a ground for invoking Rule 23(b)(1)(A). For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Overpayment Letter Class under a Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is denied. With respect to Rule 23(b)(2) requirements, Judge Martinotti finds that cohesiveness among the class members fails because some members received ERISA-compliant notices, while others did not, and therefore the Court is required to examine whether each notice complied with ERISA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Provider Flag Class under Rule 23(b)(2) is denied. Judge Martinotti further finds that because not every Overpayment Letter makes a demand for payment, the claims among class members cannot be cohesive, and therefore, the class does not satisfy the Rule 23(b)(2) requirements for certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Overpayment Letter Class under Rule 23(b)(2) is also denied. Having conduct the required rigorous analysis, Judge Martinotti is not satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 23 are met. Therefore, for the reasons he set forth, he denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class. An appropriate Order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4cbbr98v from Leagle.com. ALLSTATE HOME LEISURE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Home Leisure LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Allstate Home Leisure LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01696-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allstate Home Leisure -- https://homeleisure.com/ -- is the largest home leisure retailer in the Metro Detroit Area offering the biggest brands of Patio Furniture, Pools, Hot Tubs, Billiards, and more.[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 AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Remand Order in Stelman Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMAZON.COM, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the lawsuit entitled Rebecca Stelman, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01632-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for violations of the Washington Revised Code and Seattle Municipal Code including failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, payment of wages less than entitled, failure to pay overtime wages, willful refusal to pay wages, and failure to pay all compensation owed. On Dec. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez on Feb. 10, 2023. In reaching this decision, Judge Martinez began his analysis by assuming all the Defendants will be found liable. He found that the factual allegations made by the Plaintiffs support a finding that the Amazon Defendants are alleged to be directly responsible for the harm to the proposed class(es). He further found that the Amazon Defendants' potential exposure to the proposed Class is much greater relative to the exposure of other Defendants. Judge Martinez held that the record demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Ninth Circuit's requirements in Singh v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 925 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2019). The Amazon Defendants and at least two-thirds of the members of the putative class are citizens of Washington. The Plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Amazon is a principal, fundamental, or direct defendant. The home state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) applies and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction on that basis. This case involves the application of Washington state law. There is clearly a distinct nexus with Washington State. Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, Judge Martinez granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and remanded the case to King County Superior Court. The matter was deemed closed. The appellate case is captioned Rebecca Stelman, et al. v. AMZN, et al., Case No. 23-80017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 23, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents REBECCA STELMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 410 Arden Avenue Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 - and - Toby J. Marshall, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 - and - Erika L. Nusser, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 - and - Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Defendants-Petitioners AMAZON.COM, INC. are represented by: Patricia A. Eakes, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 407-2200 - and - Michael E. Kenneally, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-5893 - and - Emma A. Healey, Esq. Laurence A. Shapero, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 (206) 876-5301 AMERICAN CAR CENTER: Johnson Sues Over WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Donnon Johnson and Antoinique Randolph, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN CAR CENTER, LLC, AMERICAN FINANCIAL, INC., RAC SERVICER, LLC, RAC KING, LLC, AF TITLE CO. and RAC DEALERSHIP, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02105 (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought on behalf of former employees who worked for Defendants and who were terminated without cause as part of, or as the result of, mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by Defendants on or about February 24, 2023, who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"). The Plaintiffs were terminated along with over 200 other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable result of a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendants during the 30-day period beginning February 24, 2023. The Defendants failed to give the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants at least 60 days' advance notice of their terminations, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendants' headquarters located in Memphis, Tennessee. The Defendants operate a company engaged in the used car business throughout the United States under the name "American Car Center."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq. GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 711 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 527-0511 Email: chrisgil@sidgilreath.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com APPLE INC: Alvarez Sues Over Misappropriated User Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Alvarez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01752-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought on behalf of all persons whose "User Information" or "UI" was harvested, acquired, and/or misappropriated because of Defendant's surreptitious and unauthorized access of such user information. Apple harvests data from its customers' iPhones and other consumer personal computing devices such as iPads, Macs using apps from the Apple "App Store," etc. That data, hereinafter referred to as "User Information" or "UI" is harvested in a manner which violates state consumer deceptive practice and advertising laws, constitutes federal and state trespass of a computer or device, and involves beaches of various equitable principles and of the common law. Apple records vast amounts of User Information without the consent or even the knowledge of Plaintiff, from all of its consumer computing devices that can utilize "apps" from its online App Store. UI is, in fact collected, stored, and maintained by Defendant to, inter alia, sell targeted advertisements to third parties that are specifically targeted at various demographics. Given the way that consumers access Apple devices, that UI includes biometric information including fingerprints and facial scans. The mechanisms through which Apple commits violations are technical and complicated; the essence is a very simple idea: for all of Apple's promises about how private your iPhone is, the company vacuums up a lot of data about consumers without permission, even when it says customers can opt out, and even when it says it is not doing so. The Defendant's conduct amounts to breach of implied contract, violation of federal and state criminal computer trespass statutes, potentially including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA). The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully accessing, recording, harvesting, and storing user actions, activities, inputs and other metadata and for future financial gain, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current iPhone customer and has bought several successive iPhones. Apple describes itself as a company which "designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul C. Whalen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 426-6870 Email: pcwhalen@pm.me - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com APPLE INC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Appointed in Barrett Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CARL BARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel. The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel. They ask the Court to appoint as interim co-lead counsel: Nyran Rose Rasche and Nickolas Hagman of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP); Anthony Fata and Sarah Flohr of Kirby McInerney LLP; and Joseph Guglielmo, Alex Outwater, and Christopher Burke of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), the Court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action. Under that section, the Court considers: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. It may also consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Judge Davila has heard oral argument on the Motion and reviewed the resumes and supporting information provided by these attorneys, and finds that their skill shown to date, and knowledge and experience in the kind of case before the Court, is sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(g). He also finds that the resources their firms possess is adequate. Judge Davila is also satisfied that there is no current concern regarding the appointment of Cafferty Clobes, Kirby McInerney, and Scott+Scott as interim co-lead class counsel of the nationwide class and the subclass. However, he remains mindful of the potential for a future conflict of interest, and his Order is subject to modification as needed to address such issues. On this basis, Judge Davila grants the Motion and appoints as interim co-lead counsel: Nyran Rose Rasche and Nickolas Hagman of Cafferty Clobes; Anthony Fata and Sarah Flohr of Kirby McInerney; and Joseph Guglielmo, Alex Outwater, and Christopher Burke of Scott+Scott. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5dtvnny from Leagle.com. ARCHIPELAGO INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Archipelago, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Archipelago, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01702 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Archipelago, Inc. -- https://shoparchipelago.com/ -- provides personal care products. The Company manufactures perfumes, candles, diffusers, gift sets, and other related products.[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 ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Jamison Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks ------------------------------------------------------------ INFINQUE JAMISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC; and HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00920-LB (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its marketing and sale of their fruit snack products. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, sell, and distribute the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign focused on claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers - specifically the lack of preservatives in the Products. The deception lies in the fact that the Products contain preservatives. Thus, although Defendants market the Products as being preservative-free, they contain preservatives. Reasonable consumers would not have purchased the Products if they had known about the misrepresentations and omissions, or would have purchased them on different terms, says the suit. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC was founded in 2010. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq. GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP 2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 274-4663 Email: jrg@ggallp.com - and - Amir Shenaq, Esq. SHENAQ PC 3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (888) 909-9993 Email: amir@shenaqpc.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste 102 Pittsburgh PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Defers Bid for Partial Judgment in Nacif Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANTONIO BACHAALANI NACIF and WIES RAFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATHIRA PHARMA, INC.; and LEEN KAWAS, Ph.D., Defendants, Case No. C21-0861 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, defers the Underwriter Defendants' motion for entry of a partial judgment and renotes to March 17, 2023. The matter comes before the Court on a motion brought by Underwriter Defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Jeffries LLC, JMP Securities LLC, and Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Inc., seeking entry of a partial judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). By Order entered July 29, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss brought by Defendants Athira, Leen Kawas, Ph.D., Athira's CFO Glenna Mileson, Athira's Board of Directors members Joseph Edelman, John M. Fluke, Jr., and James A. Johnson, and the Underwriter Defendants. Of the Plaintiffs' five claims, only three were asserted against the Underwriter Defendants, namely (a) the Plaintiffs' first claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, (b) the Plaintiffs' third claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and (c) the Plaintiffs' fourth claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act. The Plaintiffs' first claim was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend as to Athira and the Individual Defendants for failure to adequately plead scienter, but with prejudice as to the Underwriter Defendants based on the Plaintiffs' clarification that they do not assert a Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 claim against those four Defendants. The Plaintiffs' third claim was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, except as to Athira and Dr. Kawas with respect to Statement 3. Their fourth claim was dismissed with prejudice as to all the Defendants in light of concessions made by named Plaintiffs Antonio Bachaalani Nacif and Wies Rafi. In its earlier Order, the Court set a deadline of Aug. 19, 2022, for the Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs have not done so. The Court later set a deadline of Dec. 16, 2022, for joining additional parties. No parties have been joined or re-joined. The Underwriter Defendants now ask the Court to enter final judgment in their favor. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that the dismissal of their Section 11 claim is not "final" for purposes of Rule 54(b), and that the current situation does not warrant entry of a partial judgment in favor of the Underwriter Defendants. In asking for entry of a partial judgment in only their favor, Judge Zilly says the Underwriter Defendants offered no basis for distinguishing between them and the other defendants. If he were to certify solely the claims asserted against the Underwriter Defendants, it would be serving up at least two appeals involving the same facts, one now involving the Underwriter Defendants and another later concerning the other defendants. He declines to enter partial judgment in a manner that might require the Ninth Circuit to decide the same issues on sequential appeals rather than once as a single unit. The procedural posture of the case, however, might support a broader Rule 54(b) certification, Judge Zilly points out. He is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' decision not to timely amend their operative pleading renders "final" the earlier dismissal without prejudice. He is also persuaded that a Rule 54(b) certification as indicated in the proposed form of partial judgment below would not result in piecemeal appeals, would be consistent with the equities involved, and might materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, particularly if review is completed before this putative class-action matter proceeds to trial in September 2024. Judge Zilly directs the parties to provide briefing on whether the Court should enter partial judgment containing the following language: "The Court having dismissed some claims with prejudice and other claims without prejudice, the Plaintiffs having opted not to file an amended pleading, certain Defendants having requested entry of partial judgment, and the Court finding no just reason for delay, now, therefore, judgment is hereby ENTERED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as follows: (i) in favor of defendants Glenna Mileson, Joseph Edelman, John M. Fluke, Jr., and James A. Johnson, and against plaintiffs Antonio Bachaalani Nacif and Wies Rafi, on all of plaintiffs' claims; (ii) in favor of defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Jeffries LLC, JMP Securities LLC, and Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Inc., and against plaintiffs Antonio Bachaalani Nacif and Wies Rafi, on plaintiffs' first (Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5), third (Section 11), and fourth (Section 12) claims; and (iii) in favor of defendants Athira Pharma, Inc. and Leen Kawas, Ph.D., and against plaintiffs Antonio Bachaalani Nacif and Wies Rafi, on plaintiffs' first (Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5), second (Section 20(a)), and fourth (Section 12) claims, and as to Statements 1 and 2 on plaintiffs' third (Section 11) and fifth (Section 15) claims. Costs may be taxed in the manner set forth in Local Civil Rule 54(d)." For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly defers the Underwriter Defendants' motion and renotes to March 17, 2023. Any objection to the Court's proposed form of partial judgment, which will not exceed 10 pages in length, will be filed by March 13, 2023. Any reply to any objection, which will not exceed five pages in length, will be filed by March 17, 2023. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Order to all counsel of record. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdd5cm9t from Leagle.com. BAIRES VALET PARKING: Jesus Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baires Valet Parking, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julian Jesus, and other similarly situated individuals v. Baires Valet Parking, Inc., Pablo N. Gimenez, individually, Case No. 9:23-cv-80302-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Baires Valet Parking Inc was founded in 2008 and is located in Landsman St. in Boca Raton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BETTERHELP INC: Class Action Probe After $7.8M FTC Fine ------------------------------------------------------- legalscoops.com reports that on March 2, 2023, the United States Federal Trade Commission announced it had entered into a proposed settlement with Mountain View, California-based BetterHelp, Inc., banning it from sharing website user data for advertising purposes and a $7.8 million fine that may provide partial consumer refunds to people who signed up for and paid for BetterHelp's services between August 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. BetterHelp has offered mental health services under several business names, including MyTherapist; Teen Counseling; Faithful Counseling; Pride Counseling; iCounseling; Regain; and Terappeuta. For a free privacy consultation, please fill out the form below or call us at 1-844-BREACH8 (1-844-273-2248). The FTC alleges in a complaint that BetterHelp (under its name and all of its other business names) used consumers' email addresses and the fact they had been in therapy to instruct Facebook to identify similar consumers and target them with advertisements for BetterHelp's counseling service. It further alleges that BetterHelp misled consumers about keeping their mental health information private and used various unauthorized methods to share sensitive data with companies such as Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest to advertise services. BetterHelp operates through the website betterhelp.com. It claims on its website to be "the world's largest therapy platform" and is described as a "mental health platform that provides online mental health services directly to consumers. The online counseling and therapy services are provided through web-based interaction as well as phone and text communication." Critically, on its website, BetterHealth represents: We have built state-of-the-art technology, operations, and infrastructure with the goal of protecting your privacy and safeguarding the information you provide. Despite those promises, the FTC says BetterHelp used a wide variety of tactics to share the health information of over 7 million consumers. For example, in 2017, BetterHelp allegedly uploaded the email addresses of all current and former clients to Facebook - nearly 2 million - to target them with ads to refer their Facebook friends to BetterHelp for mental health services. During another period, the FTC says BetterHelp disclosed to Facebook for advertising purposes the previous therapy of 1.5 million people who visited or used BetterHelp's site. The source of that information: their responses to the intake question, "Have you been in counseling or therapy before?" On BetterHelp's website, patients are asked to answer a series of questions covering their mental health conditions. Although BetterHelp's website claims that information is kept private and safeguarded, this information is reportedly sent to advertising platforms, along with the information needed to identify users. This data is extremely personal and can be used to target advertisements for services that, as the United States Senate has stated in an investigation of other similar healthcare provider companies, may be "potentially harmful physically, psychologically, or emotionally." BetterHelp is a membership-based service that ranges from $60-$90 per week. According to the FTC: "Since BetterHelp was founded, more than two million people have signed up, entrusting the company with their personal information, much of it related to the status of their health - and their mental health." On January 9, 2023, it was announced that "Despite a somewhat rocky 2022, Teladoc Health Inc.'s (NYSE: TDOC) direct-to-consumer behavioral health subsidiary, BetterHelp, raked in over $1 billion in revenue. That's a $300 million increase from 2021", with over 1 million people using its platform in 2022. According to the FTC: "In the hierarchy of confidential data, health information ranks right up there. And in the hierarchy of health information, details about a person's mental health may be among the most confidential. But according to the FTC, that's not how online counseling service BetterHelp viewed it. The FTC says the company repeatedly pushed people to take an Intake Questionnaire and hand over sensitive health information through unavoidable prompts." If you have used BetterHelp's services over the last several years and signed up for and paid for BetterHelp's services between August 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, your personal information may have been sold to third-party advertisers such as Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest without your informed authorization or consent. Special California Privacy Laws Protect You California's privacy laws specifically protect your personal information. Among these laws include: The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) makes it unlawful for businesses to engage in electronic "wiretapping" without consent or by helping other entities, like Facebook, intercept electronic communications without consumer consent. The CIPA may entitle consumers to $5,000 or three times their damages, whichever is greater. The Confidential Medical Information Act (CMIA) protects confidential health-related information. The CMIA prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor from disclosing patient information without authorization. The CMIA may entitle consumers to $1,000 without proof of any monetary damages. For a free privacy consultation, please fill out the form below or call us at 1-844-BREACH8 (1-844-273-2248). Despite the above California laws, you may not be awarded compensation without legal assistance. You may be entitled to up to $5,000, or more, depending on which California laws may have been violated by this conduct. Participants can recover damages, injunctive relief (to make sure the business has reasonable security practices to protect consumer data), and anything else necessary to compensate victims and prevent these harms from occurring again. Experienced unauthorized data access class action attorneys can help you exercise your rights, evaluate your options and decide whether you are entitled to compensation. You have no out-of-pocket costs; we only get paid if we prevail. You Have Important Legal Rights Under California's CCPA The CCPA also provides consumers with other important rights. These include: -- The right to see a copy of the personal data a business has collected about you for free. -- The right to discover why a business has collected your personal information, what it has shared (by category), who it was collected from (by source type), and who it has shared your data with (by category). Exercise Your Rights Under California Law Identity theft is on the upswing, and as the FTC noted, this data has significant value, as shown by what BetterHelp has done to allow companies like Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest to access your personal information. If you have used BetterHelp's services over the last several years and signed up for and paid for BetterHelp's services between August 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, your personal information may have been sold to third-party advertisers without your informed authorization or consent.[GN] BLOCKFI INC: Faces Elas Suit Over Unlawful Cryptocurrency Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIE ELAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAC PRINCE; FLORI MARQUEZ; AMIT CHEELA; DAVID OLSSON; and SAMIA BAYOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10472-IT (D. Mass., March 1, 2023) is a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who invested in BlockFi Interest Accounts ("BIAs") against the Defendants during the Class Period, from March 4, 2019, to and including November 28, 2022 (the "Class"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities and Exchange Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that BlockFi, Inc. ("BlockFi") and the Defendants unlawfully failed to register BIAs as securities before selling them to individual investors. The Defendants made repeated false and misleading statements to promote BIAs, including that BIAs were a secure method of collecting interest. In addition, Defendants and BlockFi omitted and concealed material information concerning the risks associated with BIAs. The Defendants and BlockFi concealed information concerning its rampant acts of self-dealing and conflicts of interest specifically with respect to its being beholden to Cameron and Tyler Winkelvoss (the "Winklevosses") who were substantial corporate investors of BlockFi, owned and controlled BlockFi's major custodian of customer assets, Gemini Trust Company, LLC ("Gemini"), and were the issuer of BlockFi default cryptocurrency to BIA account holders, Gemini Dollar, the suit asserts. BLOCKFI INC. specializes in consumer financing services. The Company offers loans to cryptoasset owners to collateralize with their cryptoassets. BlockFi provides risk management, financial technology, and digital financing solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Teti, Esq. Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Noah L. Cozad, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com ncozad@gustafsongluek.com - and - Scott David Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-7062 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Esq. ISQUITH LAW PLLC. 220 East 80th Street New York, NY 10075 Telephone: (607) 277-6513 Email: isquithlaw@gmail.com - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Gayatri S. Raghunandan, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com graghunandan@cpmlegal.com - and - Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 40 Worth Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 201-6820 Facsimile: (917) 398-7753 Email: abarnett@cpmlegal.com - and - Richard Vita, Esq. VITA LAW OFFICES, P.C. 100 State Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 426-6566 Email: rjv@vitalaw.com BLUE SKY ENVIRONMENTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Sky Environments, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Sky Environments, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01720 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blue Sky Environments, Inc. -- https://www.bseid.com/ -- offer indoor and outdoor furniture & home decor online.[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 BSH HOME: Faces Hedrick Suit Over Mislabeled Gas Stoves ------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HEDRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00358 (C.D. Cal., March 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendant makes, sells, and markets household appliances, including Thermador brand gas stoves which contains nitrogen oxides, a harmful pollutants. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that while the Defendant is aware of the harmful health effects of gas cooking, everyday consumers are unaware of these risks. Consumers shopping for a new oven, range, or stove have very little information about the health risks of gas appliances. Consumers remain unaware because nothing on the Defendant's packaging, instructions, or warning labels suggest that the gas stoves regularly emit pollutants that are harmful to human health. Further, the labels and warnings do not mention any risk of nitrogen oxides, added the Plaintiff. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION makes, distributes, sells, and markets gas stoves, ovens, and range products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com BUILD REALTY: Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel in Named Compound Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, COMPOUND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUILD REALTY, INC., d/b/a, GREENLEAF FUNDING, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-133 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division: a. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; b. appoints Plaintiffs Compound Property Management LLC, Leone1, LLC, R&G Cincy Investments, LLC, Pyramid Investment Group, LLC, and Ratio Models, LLC as the class representatives for the class; c. appoints Plaintiffs Compound Property Management LLC, Leone1, LLC, R&G Cincy Investments, LLC, and Ratio Models, LLC, as the class representatives for the subclass; and d. appoints Finney Law Firm, LLC, and Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, as the class counsel. Plaintiffs Compound Property Management LLC, Leone1, LLC, R&G Cincy Investments, LLC, Pyramid Investment Group, LLC, and Ratio Models, LLC contend that Defendants Build Realty, Inc., Edgar Construction, LLC, Cincy Construction, LLC, McGregor Holdings, LLC, Cowtown Holdings, LLC, Build NKY, LLC, Greenleaf Support Services, LLC, Build SWO, LLC, Gary Bailey, George Triantafilou, G2 Technologies, LLC, GT Financial, LLC, and First Title Agency, Inc. violated the 1961 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, along with the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, trust law, and various equitable doctrines, when they allegedly engaged in a pattern of defrauding investors through the Defendants' property-flipping business enterprise. Seeking to vindicate their own rights, as well as the rights of all others similarly swindled (or so the Plaintiffs claim), the Plaintiffs now move the Court to certify the matter as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs, a collection of small real-estate investor LLCs, allege that the Defendants engaged in a complex scheme to defraud them and others like them. They contend that the Defendants' labyrinthine business model maximized opportunities to generate money for Defendants by violating investor expectations, contractual agreements, and (at least as to some Defendants) fiduciary duties. The Defendants, meanwhile, argue in their Response that they operated a legitimate enterprise with many satisfied investors and they fully advised investors of the risks and rewards their system offered. The Defendants' business model (what the Plaintiffs call the "Build Scheme") is to help investors purchase, rehab, and resell homes (a practice sometimes called "flipping"). They began by identifying and acquiring rights to purchase properties with rehab potential. After acquiring a right to purchase a property for a set price, Build Reality prepared an estimate of the improvement costs needed to "flip" it for profit. The Defendants simultaneously solicited investors for these properties through various means, including roadside signs, a website, mailed brochures, seminars, and word-of-mouth. After recruiting investors, they paired each investor to a property (or multiple properties) for that investor to "purchase," rehab, and resell. About 200 to 250 investors enrolled. Build Realty and its affiliates identified both properties and investors, acquired the properties, "loaned" funds to investors to "purchase" the properties, held rehab funds in escrow, disbursed those same funds as investors performed the specified improvements, and oversaw the process. Throughout, Build Realty's subsidiary, Edgar Construction, maintained legal ownership of the property, while the investor used Build's "loan" proceeds to improve it. Build Realty then recouped its expenses when the investor sold the property. And if the investor walked away or defaulted, no trouble. Build Realty already owned the property through Edgar. Finally, Build Realty profited at many steps along the way. The Plaintiffs refer to the business model as the "Build Scheme," painting a portrait of an enterprise aimed at misleading and defrauding investors. They advance nine main claims of misrepresentation and wrongdoing against Build Realty, and its affiliates and subsidiaries. First, the Plaintiffs contend that Build Realty secretly inflated purchase prices between its initial purchase of the property and its subsequent "sale" to the investor (between the Buy Side and the Sell Side of the double closing). Second, they argue that Build Realty "misapplied" the $10,000 that investors paid at closing. Third, they contend that Build Realty wrongly charged investors interest on not-yet-obtained funds. Fourth, they contend that Build Realty violated the fiduciary duties it owed to investors by surreptitiously profiting off an interest rate markup. Fifth, the Plaintiffs return to their charge that Build Realty and its affiliates routinely charged costs and fees over the contractual limit agreed to at closing. Sixth, they argue that Build Realty harmed investors in connection with a credit check fee. Seventh, they complain that investors paid a $400 to $450 "document preparation fee" to "Jack Donenfeld" at closing. Eighth, they conclude that Build Realty intentionally structured its operations to deprive investors of their state-law rights as mortgagees. Based on these allegations of misrepresentations and wrongdoing, the Plaintiffs, investors into the Build Realty business model, advanced a litany of legal claims These include: a civil RICO claim predicated on mail fraud (part of Count I), an Ohio Corrupt Practices Act claim (part of Count I), claims for breach of fiduciary duties (Count II), civil conspiracy (Count III), and unjust enrichment (Count IV) along with declaratory judgment claims seeking a declaration that the Defendants violated investors' foreclosure rights (Count V) and that Edgar's trusts are void or voidable (Counts VI & VII). Now over three years into litigation, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class action to press the claims. They propose the following class: The Plaintiffs and all other persons and entities in Ohio and Kentucky, individually and collectively, that invested in real property and were named as beneficiaries to a trust created through a real estate transaction engaged in by, through, or with any of the Defendants named herein, using the Build Scheme further described and defined herein, for the longest period allowed by law (the Class). Separately, they propose the following subclass: Members of the Class that had their properties reclaimed and resold as a result of default, without access to judicial foreclosure proceedings and the opportunity to redeem, and without receiving the excess proceeds (if any) upon subsequent sale of the property by Build. As they have throughout the case, the Defendants vigorously dispute all the accusations. They claim they fully informed investors of the proposed arrangement, that the investors were sophisticated, and that they knew enough to understand the risks and rewards entailed. More relevant for class certification, the Defendants chiefly contend that the individualized nature of the investors' experiences makes Plaintiffs' claims unfit for class resolution. They highlight multiple differences, including among the properties themselves, the various investors' characteristics, the way investors learned of Build Realty, each individual investor's understanding of the trust model, side-agreements various investors had, their individual rehabbing experiences, and even differing effects from disruption that the Plaintiffs' counsel Chris Finney allegedly caused (more on that later). Separately, they argue the Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to show the other prerequisites of certification, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. Judge Cole says that the Plaintiffs must clear multiple hurdles to succeed on their motion for class certification: Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, adequacy, and typicality, as well as at least some subset of Rule 23(b)'s various requirements. And the Plaintiffs must make those showings as to each claim for which they seek certification. In objecting, the Defendants don't give an inch. They contest certification at every step and as to every claim. Judge Cole, however, determines he should certify the class for the Plaintiffs' civil RICO and breach of fiduciary duties claims -- but only those claims. Both claims satisfy each of the Rule 23(a) requirements, and each also falls within the scope of Rule 23(b)(3). That is not to suggest that Judge Cole believes it likely (or unlikely) that the Plaintiffs will prevail on those claims. Rather, he merely determines that it is appropriate to address the Plaintiffs' civil RICO and fiduciary duties claims, whether meritorious or not, on a class-wide basis. That is not true, however, for the remaining claims. Thus, Judge Cole grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs Motion to Certify. Specifically, he grants certification for the Plaintiffs' civil RICO and breach of fiduciary duties claims and denies certification for their Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims. Finally, Judge Cole finds the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their declaratory relief claims and so dismisses the Plaintiffs' Count V, Count VI, and Count VII. After certifying a class action, Judge Cole must appoint the class counsel under Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs request the Court appoints the Finney Law Firm, LLC, and Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, as the class counsel. Judge Cole concludes that Finney Law Firm, LLC, and Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, are fit to serve as the class counsel. First, the counsel identified and investigated the claim. Second, the two firms are experienced in conducting class litigation. Third, the Finney Law Firm specializes, in part, in commercial real estate law, while Markovits, Stock & DeMarco specializes in class actions, making the combination of the two effective given the nature of the claims. Fourth, the counsel have the resources to carry out the litigation effectively. Judge Cole further adopts the amended class and subclass definitions put forth by the Plaintiffs. And, he, for now, permits the class to include both Ohio and Kentucky plaintiffs. If the Defendants have reason to believe either certified claim cannot proceed with citizens of both states, or that the citizens of the two states should be separated into subclasses for one or both claims certified, the Court can entertain that motion at a later date. Finally, although the Plaintiffs request the Court appoints all five named Plaintiffs as class representatives for both the class and subclass, Judge Cole cannot appoint Pyramid Investment Group, LLC, as a subclass representative. He says Pyramid is not a member of the subclass because Build Realty did not reclaim Pyramid's property as a result of default. For these reasons, Judge Cole appoints: a. Plaintiffs Compound Property Management LLC, Leone1, LLC, R&G Cincy Investments, LLC, Pyramid Investment Group, LLC, and Ratio Models, LLC as the class representatives for the class; b. Plaintiffs Compound Property Management LLC, Leone1, LLC, R&G Cincy Investments, LLC, and Ratio Models, LLC as the class representatives for the subclass; and c. the Finney Law Firm, LLC, and Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC as the class counsel. Judge Cole orders the counsel for the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed agreed class notice to the Court within 14 days of this Opinion's issuance. If the counsel cannot reach agreement, the Plaintiffs will file their proposed notice by the same deadline, and the Defendants will file their specific objections to the proposed notice within 14 days after the Plaintiffs file. If desired, the Plaintiffs may respond to the Defendants' objections within five days after the Defendants object. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y73h477n from Leagle.com. C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Jacobowitz Sues Over Unlawfully Disclosed Debt ------------------------------------------------------------------ Isaac Jacobowitz, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. C.TECH COLLECTIONS, INC., Case No. 506369/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (hereinafter "FDCPA") by disclosing debt to third-party vendor. The Plaintiff allegedly incurred a medical bill. In an attempt to collect the debt, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter dated March 3rd, 2022. The letter was not sent from Defendant itself; Defendant utilized a third-party vendor to send the letter. In doing so, Defendant disclosed Plaintiff's personal information to a third party in violation of the FDCPA, including the fact that Plaintiff owed a medical debt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and is a "consumer." C.Tech Collections, Inc. is a corporation that regularly conducts business in New York and is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: 862)227-3106 Fax: (973) 282-8603 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cvijic Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER CVIJIC; and SPENCER MCLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00816 (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Cvijic and McLaughlin were employed by the Defendant as supervisor and as a dealer and dual-rate supervisor, respectively. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. owns and operates as a chain of resorts. The Company offers casino, poker, roulette, and other gaming facilities, as well as provides food and beverages services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Auerbach, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN T. AUERBACH 822 Montgomery Ave. Suite 210 Narberth, PA. 19072 Telephone: (215) 964-4410 Facsimile: (215) 613-0890 Email: Auerbach.Steven@gmail.com - and - Harold Goldner, Esq. FRIEDMAN SCHUMAN, P.C. 275 Commerce Dr. Suite 210 Fort Washington, PA 19034 Telephone: (215) 392-6944 Facsimile: (215) 635-7212 Email: HGoldner@fsalaw.com CAKE ART INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cake Art, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cake Art, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01722 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cake Art -- https://cakeart.com/ -- has supplied cake decorating, candy making, & baking supplies since 1977.[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 CARVE MEDIA INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carve Media, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Carve Media, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01704 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carve Media, Inc. was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes providing computer processing and data preparation services.[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 CELEBRITY HOME: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Volkova of National Mortgage News reports that a class action complaint has been lodged against Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois-based Celebrity Home Loans for its "callous" decision to shutdown without giving employees a 60-days heads up, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The suit, filed by Michael Blake, a former loan officer at CHL, also accuses the lender of failing to "timely pay full wages, commissions and final compensation owed," in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The complaint alleges that executive officers "knew for weeks, if not months" that the company was going under and the breakdown of negotiations with Arizona-based On Q Financial Inc. -- which was set to acquire parts of the company -- "could lead to a mass layoff and closure of the company." [GN] CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LEWIS CHEWNING; DAVID HEALEY; and BELLE ROSENBLOOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01227-ZNQ-LHG (March 2, 2023) alleged that the Defendant failed to properly implement basic data security practices. According to the complaint, on December 29, 2022, CentraState experienced a hack and exfiltration of patient data, which it publicly reported on or about February 8, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiffs and Class members now face a present and imminent lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, says the suit. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach was the result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' sensitive personal information ("SPI"), (ii) adequately warn its current and former customers and potential customers of its inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates state statutes. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. is a private, not-for-profit health organization, offering the health and wellness services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. 270 Madison Ave. New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: rifkin@whafh.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Pudder Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- RENA PUDDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and ATLANTIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01158 (D.N.J., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Declaratory Judgment Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff bring this class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard patients' private medical information and other sensitive information stored on CentraState's computer and electronic data storage systems following a data breach on December 29, 2022. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients about the ransomware attack, which was announced to them on or about February 10, 2023. As a result, the sensitive private information of the Plaintiff and Class Members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the suit. CentraState Healthcare System, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit health organization, with its central location in Freehold, New Jersey. Atlantic Health System, Inc. is a non-profit health care network headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. Denittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane Prince, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over ERISA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Emily Cousins of Benefits Pro reports that an ERISA class action suit has been filed against Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co. in Connecticut District Court, alleging the insurer is overcharging for medical services. Arizona citizen Aubrey Srednicki, the named plaintiff, has a health care plan that claims Cigna negotiates lower rates with in-network providers to help those insured with Cigna to save money, the complaint said. However, the plaintiffs allege that Cigna has participated in a "fraudulent scheme, " and the proposed class members did not save money, and were overcharged for medical services. The complaint lays out an example where Srednicki obtained a blood test from an in-network provider, LabCorp, and allegedly discovered the uninsured cash price was significantly less than what she paid. On the Explanation of Benefits, Cigna allegedly said the provider was "HLTH DIAG LAB" instead of the actual provider LabCorp, and the amount billed was $17,462.66. The cash price for an uninsured customer at LabCorp was allegedly $449. Cigna claimed it had provided a discount of $14,572.66 on the Explanation of Benefits, and the plan covered $471.02 of the $2,787 covered amount, the complaint said. This left Srednicki with the responsibility to pay $2,315. 98 in deductible and coinsurance payments. Srednicki's doctor allegedly orally confirmed that Cigna had paid in full for the blood test with the $471.02, the complaint said. "Cigna did not disclose to plaintiff Srednicki in its billing materials the fact that LabCorp. had been paid in full nor did it disclose that, in fact, there was no 'balance' to bill plaintiff Srednicki, " the complaint said. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that "'HLTH DIAG LAB' is a doing-business-as pseudonym for Cigna-affiliate Cigna Healthcare of Arizona, Inc.," to create a fake invoice, the complaint said. "These fictitious amounts were then included on a fraudulent invoice, prepared by Cigna Medical Group, and sent through interstate mail to plaintiff Srednicki and demanding a fraudulent payment to Cigna Medical Group in the amount of $2,315.98," the complaint said. The plaintiffs further claim the defendant is a fiduciary of all the class members' plans under ERISA, the complaint said. "Defendant breached the terms of the ERISA Plans and legal obligations, committed breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions, and harmed plaintiff and class members," the complaint said. A representative for Cigna did not immediately respond to a request for comment. No attorney had entered an appearance for the defense by press time. Plaintiff counsel Robert A. Izard of Izard, Kindall & Raabe and William H. Narwold of Motley Rice did not respond to a request to comment. [GN] COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cognyte Software Ltd. ("Cognyte" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CGNT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cognyte securities between February 2, 2021 and June 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 1, 2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On December 16, 2021, after the market closed, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, issued a "Threat Report," which included the results of its "months long" investigation into the "surveillance-for-hire industry," revealing for the first time that Cognyte (along with six private companies) regularly targeted, without their knowledge, journalists, dissidents, critics of authoritarian regimes, families of opposition, and human rights activists around the world, and collected intelligence on these people by manipulating them to reveal information and/or by compromising their devices and accounts, in violation of Facebook's "multiple community standards and Terms of Service." In particular, the Threat Report revealed that Cognyte "sells access to its platform which enables managing fake accounts across social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and VKontakte (VK), and other websites to social-engineer people and collect data." This conduct "violated multiple Community Standards and Terms of Service," and "given the severity of their violations," Meta disabled Cognyte's ability to use its platforms (removing about 100 accounts on Facebook and Instagram), shared is findings with security researchers, other platforms, and policymakers, issued Cease and Desist warnings, and alerted the nearly 50,000 individuals (across 100 countries) who were believed to be targeted to help them strengthen the security of their accounts. On this news, the price of Cognyte's common stock fell 5.11%, closing on December 17, 2021, at $18 per share, before declining another 5.5% the next trading day. By December 22, 2021, Cognyte's stock had fallen to trade at $15 per share, representing a decline of nearly 21%. Then, on April 5, 2022, Cognyte issued its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended January 31, 2022 (the "2021 Annual Report"), revealing that the Company was forced to modify its solutions in response to the Threat Report, stating in relevant part: Our solutions capture, fuse and analyze data collected from various sources, including from commercial web sources and social platforms. Such sources and platforms may allege that our solutions and techniques for capturing and collecting data and information from such sources violate their terms of use or other propriety rights of such sources or of their users. In December 2021, Meta Platforms Inc., or Meta, issued a report alleging that certain solutions offered by us that interface with Facebook and Instagram platforms violate their terms of use. Concurrently with the issuance of the foregoing report, Meta announced that it had removed accounts that it claimed were associated with our solutions and requested we cease data collection from its social platforms. In response to Meta's allegations, we made modifications to certain features of our solutions, which impacted the manner our customers can use these solutions. Any allegations that our solutions and techniques infringe the terms of use or rights of third parties may result in legal claims against us or our customers. These claims may damage our reputation, adversely impact our customer relationships and create liability for us. On the same day it published its 2021 Annual Report, Cognyte reported its fourth quarter 2021 financial results, representing the period during which Facebook disrupted and disabled Cognyte's use of its platforms for purposes of reconnaissance. Cognyte badly missed analyst consensus estimates for non-GAAP earnings per share and sales, and significantly undershot the midpoint of its guidance range by several millions of dollars, citing in the Company's accompanying press release "lower conversions within [its] product pipeline," among other macroenvironmental challenges. Specifically, the Company's non-GAAP earnings of $0.16 per share were not only down significantly from the $0.36 per share it earned in the year-ago quarter but also $0.06 per share below analysts' expectations of $0.22 per share. Similarly, Cognyte's sales of $124.9 million, representing a less than 1% increase from the year-ago period, also came significantly below analysts' consensus estimate of $129.6 million. The response from analysts was swift with many reducing their price targets, including Wedbush, who lowered their price target from $17 to $9 and concluded: [T]he Cognyte business model is turning into a debacle of epic proportions for investors that once believed in the story. Since the spin-off from Verint over the past year, the Cognyte story ha[s] been a nightmare for investors as the execution shortfalls, longer sales cycles, and myriad of challenges has created a perfect storm for the Street. Most troubling to us is that CGNT was unable to guide for 1Q23 and 2023, which means to us that management may not have their arms around the sales execution and headwinds in our opinion. The market also responded immediately and harshly. Cognyte's stock price plummeted over 31% on unusually high trading volume, closing at $8.03 per share on April 5, 2022, which was down $3.63 per share from its April 4, 2022 close of $11.66 per share. Then, on June 28, 2022, Cognyte released its first quarter 2022 financial results, which, once again, badly missed analyst estimates across the board. Cognyte's 1Q22 revenue of $87 million, for example, represented a decline of 25%. Analysts were expecting a decline of 2%. In response, analysts immediately downgraded the Company's rating and reduced their price targets. William Blair, for example, downgraded Cognyte to "market perform" and concluded that Cognyte's "low pipeline conversion" issues were a symptom of a broader problem, stating in relevant part: Cognyte's brand has been negatively impacted by increased scrutiny of the cyber intelligence industry and fellow Israel cyber surveillance firm NSO Group. Last fall, the U.S. government blacklisted the NSO Group after a multitude of reports surfaced that its software was being used inappropriately by governments to spy on citizens with dissenting views. While we believe there is value to cyber intelligence we believe that it is important for investors and customers that there are rigid safeguards in place and high transparency to ensure that the software is used in an ethical manner. On this news, Cognyte's shares declined $1.84, or over 28.66%, to close at $4.58 per share. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cognyte shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcom. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Remand Order in Zortea Suit to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP is appealing an order granting a plaintiff's Motion to Remand her lawsuit entitled Monica Zortea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Costco Wholesale Corp, Defendant, Case No. 2-22-cv-01316, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. AS previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to the Western District of Pennsylvania, is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. On Oct. 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on Feb. 13, 2023. The Court ruled that the case is not eligible for removal and remand is appropriate. Moreover, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot without prejudice because the Court is remanding the suit to Allegheny County. The appellate case is captioned Monica Zortea v. Costco Wholesale Corp, Case No. 23-8009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 23, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MONICA ZORTEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 (724) 714-3095 (717) 491-9162 (412) 222-5740 - and - Kenneth A. Held, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (716) 341-2397 (412) 322-9243 Defendant-Petitioner COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP is represented by: Peter Bae, Esq. James Moon, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 - and - James E. Howard, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 757-7336 - and - John G. Papianou, Esq. Leah A. Tedford, Esq. MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS 1735 Market Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 772-7389 (215) 772-7401 CREATIVE SNACKS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Snacks Co., LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Creative Snacks Co., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01667 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Creative Snacks Co., LLC -- https://www.creativesnacks.com/ -- was founded in 2009. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of candy, nuts, popcorn, and other confections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com DARWIN AND WALLACE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darwin And Wallace, LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Darwin And Wallace, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01754 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Darwin & Wallace -- https://www.darwinandwallace.com/ -- is a New & Premier Natural History store for Real Fossils, Taxidermy, Skulls, Skeletons, Jewelry, Dinosaur items & so much more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal DAVIE MOTORSPORT: Mallaguare Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Davie Motorsport Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Freddy A. Mallaguare, and other similarly situated individuals v. Davie Motorsport Enterprises, Inc., Doron Avi Shtaeinweis, individually, Case No. 0:23-cv-60389-AHS (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Davie Motorsport Enterprises, Inc. is an auto repair shop in Davie, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DELIVERED USA INC: Brummett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delivered USA Inc., et al. The case is styled as Randy Brummett II, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delivered USA Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC23604850 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 28, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Delivered USA Inc. -- https://deliveredusa.com/ -- is an Amazon Delivery Service Partner located in the beautiful Wine Country of Livermore Valley, California.[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 DOMINIC HEALTH: Boswell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Glenda Boswell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ST. DOMINIC HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES OF OUR LADY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00151-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime wages, non-discretionary bonuses, liquidated damages, and any/all other applicable damages and penalties brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff was not paid accurate standard and/or overtime wages, and/or non-discretionary bonuses, despite the fact that the Plaintiff routinely worked (and continue to work) at or in excess of 40 hours per workweek, or in the the Plaintiff's case, at or in excess of the requisite hours of an "8 and 80" system available for eligible healthcare workers. The acts and/or omissions of the Defendants in failing to accurately pay compensation to the Plaintiff was neither reasonable nor done in good faith. The Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff was accurate compensation in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants. St. Dominic Health Services, Inc., is the parent company for a large group of subsidiary organizations generally providing healthcare related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Rueff, Esq. LUNSFORD, BASKIN & PRIEBE, PLLC Lamar Life Building, Suite 600 317 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 983-2667 Facsimile: (601) 983-2076 Email: andrew@lunsfordbaskin.com DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Settlement Claims Filing Due Set April 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that DoubleDown Interactive agreed to pay $415 million to end claims the company's mobile casino games violated Washington state gambling laws. The class action settlement will benefit a class of consumers who played the video game company's DoubleDown Casino, DoubleDown Fort Knox, DoubleDown Classic and/or Ellen's Road to Riches mobile casino games prior to Nov. 14, 2022. Individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by April 11.[GN] DRONE NERDS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drone Nerds, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Drone Nerds, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01726 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Drone Nerds -- https://www.dronenerds.com/ -- is the largest UAV dealer in the United States.[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 ECONOMIST MICHIGAN: Privacy Settlement Claims Filing Due April 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by April 12, 2023. The Economist agreed to pay $9.5 million to resolve claims the company shared the information of its Michigan subscribers with third parties without consent. The class action settlement benefits a class of Michigan residents who had a subscription to a The Economist publication that was either delivered electronically or to a street address in Michigan from between February 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016. [GN] ENVISION CREDIT: Breach Final Settlement Approval Heard on Apr. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that the final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 13, 2023 in the case-captioned Colston, et al v. Envision Credit Union, Case No. 2022 CA 001476, in the Florida Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit. Envision Credit Union data breach class action settlement. Envision Credit Union agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumer info from a 2021 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals whose full name and other personal identifier information was accessed during the Envision Credit Union data breach between Aug. 5, 2021, and Aug. 7, 2021. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim that Envision Credit Union could have prevented the August 2021 data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Consumers are now at the risk for fraud and identity theft, the consumers contend. Envision Credit Union is a financial institution in northern Florida and southern Georgia. Envision hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve these data breach claims. Envision will pay up to $250,000 for ordinary expense reimbursement, lost time claims and extraordinary reimbursement. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to $300 for ordinary expenses such as bank fees, communication charges, credit-related costs and up to three hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Claimants can receive higher payments of $4,000 for documented monetary losses related to the data breach. All class members can receive three years of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. The settlement also includes security enhancements by Envision to better protect consumer information. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 14, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 13, 2023. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 13, 2023. Individuals whose full name and other personal identifier information was accessed during the Envision Credit Union data breach between Aug. 5, 2021, and Aug. 7, 2021. Potential Award $4,300 Proof of Purchase Documentation of data breach-related expenses. 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 05/13/2023 Case Name Colston, et al v. Envision Credit Union, Case No. 2022 CA 001476, in the Florida Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit Final Hearing 04/13/2023 Settlement Website ecu-settlement.com Claims Administrator Envision Data Breach Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 58220 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Info@ECU-Settlement.com 833-906-3334 Class Counsel Gary E Mason Danielle L Perry Lisa White MASON LLP Defense Counsel James Monagle MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC[GN] ESSENTIA HEALTH: Okash Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII and PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Okash, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Essentia Health, Case No. 0:23-cv-00482 (D. Minn., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought on behalf of a class of persons impacted by Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of their highly sensitive Personal Health Information ("PHI") and Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") (collectively "Sensitive Information") to third parties. The Defendant solicited and obtained Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information as part of its ordinary business activities as a medical services provider. Recently, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant incorporates Meta Platform, Inc.'s ("Meta") tracking technology, the Meta Pixel ("Pixel"), on the Essentia's website and within its patient portal. Pixel is a snippet of code that, when embedded on a third party website, tracks the website visitor's activity on that website and sends that data to Meta. Here, the information transmitted to third party Meta, without Plaintiff's consent, most certainly included private healthcare information, which is some of the most personal and sensitive data Plaintiff has. The Defendant's use of Pixel allowed for a broad scope of patient information, including highly confidential medical information, to be collected and transmitted to Meta without patients' knowledge or consent. Specifically, Pixel is designed to track website users' activity on a website or application. It can capture how visitors interact with the site, including buttons they click and information they provide to form fields or otherwise. These are collectively known as "Website Communications." As a result of Defendant's use of Pixel, Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information, including computer IP addresses; dates, times, and/or locations of scheduled appointments; information about patients' health care providers; types of treatments or conditions researched; type of appointment or procedure scheduled; communications between patients and others through the online patient portal, which may have included first and last names and medical record numbers; information about whether patients have insurance; gender and sexual orientation; and if a patient had a proxy portal account, the name of the proxy, and other information submitted by Plaintiff and the Class on Defendant's website or application, was compromised and disclosed to third parties without authorization or consent. The Plaintiff and the Class never consented to, authorized, or otherwise agreed to allow Defendant to disclose their Sensitive Information to anyone other than those reasonably believed to be part of Defendant, acting in some medical care related capacity. Despite this, Defendant knowingly and intentionally disclosed Plaintiff's and the Class members' Sensitive Information to its vendors and other undisclosed third parties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff receives medical services from Defendant every year, during May through October. The Defendant's ordinary course of business includes providing patients with an online website, essentiahealth.org.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Jason P. Johnston, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com jason.johnston@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: (480) 348-6400 Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 522-4291 Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com ESSENTIAL SERVICES: D'Arcy Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRANDON D'ARCY On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESSENTIAL SERVICES INTERMEDIATE HOLDING CORPORATION D/B/A TURNPOINT SERVICES; HUNTER SUPER TECHS SERVICE CORPORATION; DOE CORPORATION 1-25; JOHN DOE 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00144-EFM (E.D. Okla.), Judge Eric F. Melgren of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma grants TurnPoint's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has brought claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and for recovery of unpaid wages under the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act ("OPLA"). He also seeks to bring a collective class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff is an Oklahoma resident who works for Defendant Hunter Super Techs Services Corp. as an HVAC technician. Hunter is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma which provides hearing, ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical services to customers in Oklahoma and Texas. TurnPoint is a holding company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Kentucky. It created Hunter as an independent, wholly-owned subsidiary in 2018 to acquire the assets of a preexisting business, Hunter Heat & Air, LLC. Following the merger, the general manager and most of Hunter Heat & Air, LLC's employees continued working for Hunter, maintaining essentially the same employment and payroll practices that existed under the previous corporation. TurnPoint has no control over the day-to-day activities of Hunter's technicians. Neither does TurnPoint set or negotiate pay or work schedules or determine the manner in which Hunter's technicians, including the Plaintiff, are paid. TurnPoint does, however, provide Hunter access to a Kronos software payroll system, which Hunter administers on its own. For a time, paystubs from this system listed TurnPoint at the bottom instead of Hunter. This was a system error detected and corrected in April 2022. TurnPoint requires Hunter's technicians to complete NexStar, a training resource, provides advertising for Hunter, and regularly sends an executive to visit Hunter's main office. The main issue of the case is Hunter's implementation of its "piece-rate" pay policy. Under this policy, technicians are paid a percentage of the customer price of the services they provide—namely 17% of each job completed. This results in situations where technicians work more than 40 hours a week without receiving overtime compensation, despite allegedly being nonexempt employees entitled to overtime under the FLSA. The Plaintiff also alleges that Hunter failed to abide by the terms of its contract, paying technicians as little as 6% of a job, as well as reducing wages whenever technicians brought along a helper. The Plaintiff brought suit against both Hunter and TurnPoint on May 10, 2022, claiming they had jointly violated the FLSA and the OPLA and seeking to initiate a class action on behalf of other technicians employed by Hunter. Soon after, TurnPoint moved to dismiss all claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of its Motion, it submitted the affidavit of Daniel Godbey, TurnPoint's CFO. Godbey averred that TurnPoint had no control over Plaintiff's policies, training, direction of its technicians' day-to-day activities, and was not involved in Hunter's pay policies or administration of its payroll at all. In response, the Plaintiff submitted his own affidavit, stating that he regularly witnessed a TurnPoint executive visit Hunter's office and that TurnPoint's name appeared on company policies and other documents on Hunter's company app. He also averred he was told by individuals who worked for Hunter Heat & Air, LLC prior to the sale of the company to TurnPoint, that employees were paid on an hourly basis and that TurnPoint Services implemented the piece-rate pay policy when it created Hunter Super Techs. At issue before the Court is whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over TurnPoint as a defendant. First, TurnPoint raises the possibility that either Oklahoma, Delaware, or federal common law may apply to this "alter ego" issue. However, in the context of personal jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit refers generally to the law of the forum state. Therefore, Judge Melgran sees no reason why Oklahoma law would not apply, and indeed, TurnPoint makes no argument to the contrary. For his part, the Plaintiff fails to cite any legal standard, thus waiving the issue of which law applies. Accordingly, Judge Melgren employs Oklahoma law to analyze whether piercing the corporate veil is warranted. Judge Melgren finds that the Plaintiff merely observes that a TurnPoint executive visits Hunter, TurnPoint mandates NexStar training, and TurnPoint provides advertising for Hunter. At best, the Plaintiff's averments constitute circumstantial evidence that TurnPoint oversees Hunter in ways typical of a parent corporation's relationship to its subsidiary. They do not come anywhere near the level of showing that TurnPoint dominates Hunter's day-today business decisions as required by Oklahoma law to establish pervasive control. Therefore, Judge Melgren must continue to treat TurnPoint as a legal entity district from Hunter for the purpose of determining whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over TurnPoint. The parties briefly argue the first element of minimum contacts, whether TurnPoint purposefully directed activities at Oklahoma residents. However, from their briefing it quickly becomes clear that the primary issue is not whether TurnPoint had any contacts with Oklahoma, but rather whether the Plaintiff's injury arose from those contacts. The burden remains on the Plaintiff to prove this element. Judge Melgren holds that because the Plaintiff fails to show that his alleged injuries arise out of TurnPoint's purposefully directed activity, he cannot establish minimum contacts. At no point does Plaintiff directly address the decisive issue -- whether his injuries arose out of the activities directed by TurnPoint at the state of Oklahoma. It is here that the Plaintiff's claim stands or falls. In this case, it falls. As it stands, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that TurnPoint had nothing to do with Hunter's decision to implement its piece-rate policy and its alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff the wages owed under either the FLSA or the OPLA. Even though Hunter used TurnPoint's Kronos payroll system to pay the Plaintiff, the decision to use the piece-rate pay policy was Hunter's alone. It is the policy -- not the payroll system itself -- that allegedly caused the Plaintiff's injury. The payroll system is completely unrelated to the Plaintiff's claims. Hunter could have just as easily implemented that policy via any other payroll system or even by issuing bad checks. Likewise, Hunter alone input and administered its payroll. The Plaintiff offers no explanation as to how TurnPoint's payroll system is causally linked to Hunter's decision to implement the piece-rate pay system. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot establish that TurnPoint caused his injuries under either but-for causation or proximate cause. As such, the Plaintiff cannot establish that his injuries arose out of TurnPoint's conduct, thereby failing to establish minimum contacts required for this Court to exercise specific jurisdiction over TurnPoint. In sum, Judge Melgren holds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over TurnPoint. Accordingly, he grants TurnPoint's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bzv9tue from Leagle.com. FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Defective Engines ------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Godfrey at delta-optimist.com reports that plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit are seeking damages from Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) for allegedly defective engines that have reportedly caused spontaneous fires in the car manufacturer's vehicles. According to court filings with the BC Supreme Court, the alleged defective engines leak "highly flammable oil fluids and fuel vapours" that pool near hot surfaces, "resulting in under-hood smoke and fire during operation, or while parked, all of which poses an imminent and substantial risk of harm or injury to vehicle occupants, bystanders" and damage to the vehicles themselves. The proposed class action names Abbotsford resident Pardeep Kumar Sharma as its title plaintiff and specifically targets Ford's Escape (2020-22 models), Maverick (2022 model) and Lincoln Corsair (2021-22 models). The action claims Ford received warranty claims as early as April 5, 2021, but the company continued to sell and lease the vehicles "and did nothing to warn purchasers and/or lessees of the spontaneous fire risk" until a stop-sale order on June 8, 2022. The company issued a global recall of some of its models in November 2022 over fire risks. "At the very least, the defendants . . . certainly knew about the spontaneous fire risk well before it issued their recall," reads the notice of civil claim. The plaintiffs claim the fix prescribed by Ford for the issue was "an inadequate solution" and created new problems. Specifically, the fix still allowed fuel vapours to leak out of the vehicles, according to the lawsuit, creating "an environmental hazard and [setting] the stage for further property damage and/or injury." "A vehicle that has a risk of spontaneously catching on fire while in operation is not fit for its intended and ordinary purpose. And a ‘fix' that does nothing to actually address an underlying issue, and in fact creates additional problems, is not a fix at all," the lawsuit claims. [GN] GACO WESTERN: Bid for Leave to Amend Feamster Class Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT SCOTT FEAMSTER, Plaintiff v. GACO WESTERN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01327-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. Feamster, now proceeding pro se, initially brought a putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant's spray polyurethane foam, which had been installed in his house, was defective. He brought causes of action for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") as well as seven common law claims. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to deny class certification. The parties waived their demand for a jury trial and the Court held a bench trial on May 19 and 20, 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the CLRA and the UCL and also brings causes of action for breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; negligence; strict products liability; unjust enrichment; fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and failure to disclose; and negligent misrepresentation. To prevail on his CLRA claim, the Plaintiff must prove that (i) he acquired, or sought to acquire, by purchase or lease, Gaco Western foam for personal, family, or household purposes; (ii) Defendant engaged in one or more prohibited practices from Civ. Code Section 1770(a); (iii) the Plaintiff was harmed; and (iv) the Plaintiff's harm resulted from the Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in the following prohibited practices: a. Misrepresented the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of Gaco Western foam, Civ. Code Section 1770(a)(2); b. Represented that Gaco Western foam has sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which it does not have, Civ. Code Section 1770(a)(5); c. Represented that Gaco Western foam is of a particular standard, quality, or grade when it is of another, Civ. Code Section 1770(a)(7); d. Represented that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law, Civ. Code Section 1770(a)(14); and e. Represented that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation, Civ. Code Section 1770(a)(16). The Plaintiff's harm resulted from the Defendant's conduct if the Plaintiff relied on the Defendant's representation. To prove reliance, he need only prove that the representation was a substantial factor in his decision. He does not need to prove that it was the primary factor or the only factor in the decision. If the Defendant's representation of fact was material, reliance may be inferred. A fact is material if a reasonable consumer would consider it important in deciding whether to buy or lease the goods. Judge Gilliam finds the Defendant not liable on the Plaintiff's CLRA claim because there is no evidence that he relied on any representations or omissions by the Defendant before the sale of the foam. Performance Foam Tech, the company hired by the Plaintiff's general contractor, apparently purchased the foam. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff was exposed to, let alone relied on, any specific representations about the foam before it was purchased and installed by Performance Foam Tech, or that the Plaintiff was involved in the purchase in any way. Next, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct in manufacturing, designing, engineering, fabricating, assembling, constructing, testing, examining, distributing, and/or marketing the defective Gaco Western foam, as well as its violation of the CLRA and common law, was an unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practice under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Judge Gilliam finds the Defendant not liable on the Plaintiff's UCL claim. First, the Plaintiff must show actual reliance for any claims based on misrepresentations and deception, whether under the "fraudulent" prong or otherwise. He has not. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff was exposed to any representations by the Defendant. As to his allegations regarding fabrication, assembly, construction, testing, examination, and distribution, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence of an unfair or unlawful practice. At most, he has established that the foam installed in his home was defective, which is not enough to give rise to a UCL claim. The Plaintiff then alleges that the Defendant breached its warranty because Gaco Western foam did not perform its basic intended and essential function, and that he failed to adequately repair or replace the foam after he notified the Defendant. Judge Gilliam finds that the Defendant is not liable on the Plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty. Again, the Plaintiff did not provide evidence that he was exposed to any information about the foam, let alone that he received a warranty, promise, or statement of fact about the foam prior to the sale that could be construed as an express warranty. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Gaco Western foam was not of merchantable quality because it contained a defect that resulted in, and continues to result in, premature deterioration in the form of shrinkage, peeling, and other failure when used in a normal, foreseeable and customary way. Again, Judge Gilliam finds that the Defendant is not liable to the Plaintiff on his claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability because he did not purchase the foam from the Defendant. Vertical privity is a prerequisite in California for recovery on a theory of breach of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. A buyer and seller stand in privity if they are in adjoining links of the distribution chain. Although "particularized exceptions" exist, the Plaintiff did not establish that any of them apply. Performance Foam Tech purchased the foam not the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff was involved in negotiations or dealings leading to the sale. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, and marketing the Gaco Western foam. He alleges the Defendant breached its duty to the Plaintiff by selling a defective product and failing to take steps necessary to repair and/or discontinue the product. Judge Gilliam finds the Defendant is not liable to the Plaintiff on the negligence claim. The Plaintiff has submitted no evidence as to the amount of care a reasonably careful manufacturer or supplier would have used to prevent or address the alleged defect. There is nothing in the record that would allow the Court to assess if this defect was a result of the Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff further alleges that Gaco Western's foam products are defective, failed to perform in accordance with his reasonable expectations, and the design benefits of the foam did not outweigh the risk of its failure. Judge Gilliam finds the Defendant not liable to the Plaintiff on his design and manufacturing defect claims. He presented no evidence supporting the claim that the design of the foam was inherently defective. Although the Plaintiff established that the foam failed, he did not provide any evidence regarding the manufacturing process. As to the unjust enrichment theory, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant voluntarily profited and benefited from the purchase of foam products with full awareness that Plaintiff was not receiving foam of the quality, nature, fitness, or value represented by the Defendant. Judge Gilliam finds the Defendant not liable on the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment theory. The Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendant was aware that there was an issue with the batch of foam it sold to Performance Foam Tech at the time of sale. Regarding his fraud claim, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant mispresented and concealed material facts about the quality of its foam, and that Defendant had a duty to disclose the actual quality of its foam. Judge Gilliam finds that the Defendant not liable on the Plaintiff's fraud claim. The record is devoid of evidence that the Defendant was aware, at the time of sale, that the foam it sold to Performance Foam Teach was defective. Further, the Plaintiff has not established that he relied on any misrepresentations. Regarding concealment, there was no duty to disclose because there was no fiduciary relationship or any evidence that the Defendant knew that the quality of the foam was lacking when sold. For his negligent misrepresentation claim, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant negligently misrepresented material facts relating to the quality of its foam product. Judge Gilliam finds that the Defendant not liable as to the Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim. There is no evidence that it made any representation regarding the quality of the foam to him, let alone without reasonable grounds for believing it was true. Turning to the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, Judge Gilliam denies it. The Plaintiff seeks to have his causes of action conform with material evidence presented during trial" by adding a breach of contract cause of action to his case. He brings his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(2). Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Defendant expressly or impliedly consented to the breach of contract claim. To the contrary, the Defendant objects to the addition of that claim. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Defendant understood that evidence introduced at trial was introduced to prove a new issue or that the new issue was directly addressed and not just inferentially raised by incidental evidence. The Plaintiff's proposed breach of contract claim is based on communications with Gaco Vice President of Sales Thomas Sojak after the foam was installed. Breach of contract was never "directly addressed" and the evidence overlapped with other issues in the case. Judge Gilliam also notes that the Plaintiff seeks to rely on his own emails from 2016. The Plaintiff seeks to amend months after the trial has concluded, based on facts that have been available to him since before he filed the case. And allowing the Plaintiff to amend now would be highly prejudicial to the Defendant, which did not defend against a breach of contract claim based on the Sojak communications at trial. In light of the foregoing, Judge Gilliam finds the Defendant not liable to the Plaintiff on any cause of action. He denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Finding of Facts & Conclusions of Law & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/29w96cru from Leagle.com. GLEN MILLS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Derrick's Claims v. CCIU ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DERRICK, et al. v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS, et al., Civil Action No. 19-1541 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Amended Joint Motion pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against the Chester County Intermediate Unit ("CCIU") and CCIU's crossclaim against Glen Mills Schools filed by the named Plaintiffs and CCIU. Derrick, through and with his mother Tina, Walter through and with his mother Janeva, and Thomas through and with his mother Michele have brought the putative class action against Defendants the Glen Mills Schools, CCIU, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, various Commonwealth of Pennsylvania officials and other individuals. In their 149-page complaint, the Plaintiffs assert eighteen counts alleging violations of their constitutional and federal and state statutory rights. Specifically, they claim that they and the putative class members following adjudications of delinquency were placed at Glen Mills Schools, suffered disability discrimination, infliction of physical and other harm, and were deprived of an education to which they were entitled. There has been extensive motion practice and several years of discovery in this far-reaching and complex action. At this point, no class has been certified. The named Plaintiffs and CCIU have now reached a settlement and have filed an Amended Joint Motion pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against CCIU and CCIU's crossclaim against Glen Mills. They have signed a written settlement agreement which is appended to their motion. CCIU will create an "Education Fund for the Benefit of Former Glen Mills Students" and allocate $1.35 million for this purpose. Those former students who meet certain criteria are eligible to receive these funds for educational purposes. CCIU will also allocate an additional $1.35 million for an Education Damages Fund for former students in the amount of up to $250 for each documented school day of placement at Glen Mills. Each identified former student at Glen Mills will be sent claim forms for both funds at their last known addresses. The named Plaintiffs are deemed eligible automatically to receive Compensatory Education Program Funds and a settlement share of the Educational Damages Fund. CCIU will pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys fees in the amount of $300,000. The Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania officials take no position on the pending motion. While no party has filed an opposition to the settlement, Glen Mills Schools and Randy Ireson have objected to the mechanism by which the Plaintiffs and CCIU propose to voluntarily dismiss their claims and crossclaims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). These Defendants argue that the settling parties are improperly circumventing the requirement of Rule 23(e) relating to class action settlements. Judge Bartle notes that the present wording of Rule 23(e), which has been in effect since 2018, is clear. It requires a settlement to be approved by the court only where a class has been certified or where a class is proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement. In the case, he says no class has been certified or proposed to be certified for settlement purposes. The settlement does not purport to bind anyone other than the named Plaintiffs and the CCIU. While the settlement agreement offers benefits to non-party former Glen Mills students, Judge Bartle says these individuals are under no obligation to apply for or accept them. The dismissal sought by the Plaintiffs and CCIU will not affect one way or the other any motion to certify a class of former students against other Defendants. Those former students will not be prejudiced as a result of the dismissal of CCIU. They will still be able to sue it. Since a putative class action was filed against CCIU, the statute of limitations has been tolled as to CCIU while it remains a party. Rule 23(e) as now written simply does not apply to the proposed settlement because no class has been certified and no settlement class is proposed. That leaves Rule 41(a)(2). Judge Bartle notes that the Court may approve any dismissal on terms it considers proper. If the Plaintiffs' claims against CCIU are dismissed, CCIU in accordance with the settlement agreement will provide educational and other monetary benefits to the named Plaintiffs. The settlement agreement will also make available similar benefits to other former Glen Mills students who wish but are not required to take advantage of them. In addition, CCIU's crossclaim against Glen Mills Schools will be dismissed. Judge Bartle holds that the state's Court of Appeals has explained that a motion for a voluntary dismissal should be granted unless the defendant will suffer some prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. The grant of the pending motion of which CCIU is a joint movant will not prejudice CCIU or any other Defendant and will not bind anyone not a signatory to the settlement. He finds that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) will be proper under the terms presented. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8juhxe from Leagle.com. GROUP HEALTH: Tapp Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info to Third Party ------------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA TAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. d/b/a HEALTHPARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-00483 (D. Minn., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint on behalf of a class of persons impacted by the Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of their highly sensitive Personal Health Information (PHI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to third parties. According to the complaint, the Defendant incorporates Meta Platform, Inc.'s (Meta) tracking technology, the Meta Pixel (Pixel), on the HealthPartners website and within its patient portal. Pixel is a snippet of code that, when embedded on a third-party website, tracks the website visitor's activity on that website and sends that data to Meta. The Defendant's use of Pixel allowed for a broad scope of patient information, including highly confidential medical information, to be collected and transmitted to Meta without patients' knowledge or consent. As a result of the Defendant's use of Pixel, the Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive information was compromised and disclosed to third parties without authorization or consent, says the suit. Group Health Plan, Inc., doing business as HealthPartners, is a medical services provider, with its principal business in Bloomington, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Jason P. Johnston, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com jason.johnston@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com GUIDA-SEIBERT DAIRY: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Gould Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIFFANEE GOULD, individually and on behalf of her minor son, A.J., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE GUIDA-SEIBERT DAIRY COMPANY, et al., Defendant, Civ. No. 22-cv-01861 (NLH/AMD) (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: a. grants Guida-Seibert's Partial Motion to Dismiss; and b. denies its Motion to Strike. The Plaintiffs are a group of parents individually and on behalf of their minor children who allege that their children were injured as a result of drinking contaminated milk processed by Guida-Seibert. The minor children all attend school in the Camden School District. The Camden School district has a contract with Aramark for food services within the schools. In turn, Aramark contracts with Guida-Seibert for milk to provide in the schools. On March 30, 2022, the Plaintiffs were advised that contaminated milk was provided to the students and that their children consumed the contaminated milk. The milk was contaminated with a commercial cleaning agent, either Vortex of Vortexx. The Plaintiffs were further advised that that their children were displaying physical symptoms after consuming the milk. Their children's symptoms included severe stomach pain and cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and flatulence. Their children were transported from school to a local hospital. All of the children were discharged from the hospital. The Plaintiffs claim they are unsure what lasting effects the chemical consumption may have on their children. As of the filing of the complaint, some of the children continued to have stomach pain. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 1, 2022. They allege the following counts: (1) negligence, (2) New Jersey Products Liability Act ("NJPLA"), and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ("NIED"). The Plaintiffs' complaint includes class allegations. The Plaintiffs describe two classes, the New Jersey Parent Class consisting of the parents and legal guardians of students in New Jersey school districts that ingested Guida-Seibert contaminated milk, and the New Jersey Student Class consisting of students in New Jersey school districts that ingested the contaminated milk. On May 23, 2022, the Defendant filed both its Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. On July 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed memorandums in opposition to these motions. Finally, the Defendant filed reply briefs on July 11, 2022. The Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Judge Hillman examines Guida-Seibert's Partial Motion to Dismiss. First, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence and for NIED should be dismissed because the NJPLA subsumes these other causes of action in products liability matters. Judge Hillman opines that regardless of the underlying legal theory advanced by a plaintiff, the NJPLA is the exclusive method to prosecute a claim for physical harm caused by a product, where that harm is claimed to be caused by a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or a failure for the product to contain adequate warnings or instructions. He says the Plaintiffs' allegations fall squarely within the purview of the NJPLA's coverage of manufacturing defects, as they allege an issue with the milk's packaging or processing. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' negligence and NIED claims are subsumed by the NJPLA. The Plaintiffs' counts for negligence and for NIED are dismissed. Next, the Defendant argues that the NJPLA claim should be dismissed to the extent it is brought on behalf of the parents in their individual capacity because they do not allege that the parents suffered physical injury. The Plaintiffs admit that the parents did not suffer a physical injury and "do not oppose" this argument. As the Plaintiffs admit, they have not plead any physical injury suffered by the parents. As such, Judge Hillman holds that the parents in their individual capacities have not sufficiently plead a NJPLA claim. The NJPLA claim on behalf of the parents in their individual capacities will be dismissed. With this dismissal, the parents no longer have any remaining claims in their individual capacities. Thus, the parents may proceed in this action only on behalf of their minor children. Lastly, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs request for punitive damages should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not plead the requisite level of culpability to support a punitive damages award. The Plaintiffs counter that given the size of the contamination event, it is reasonable to infer that at least one representative at the Defendant-company was aware of this contamination and either contumaciously or recklessly shipped the product out anyway. The Defendant responds that such allegation is not included in the complaint, and that regardless it is "unsupported and idle supposition. Judge Hillman finds that the Plaintiffs' complaint does not include allegations that describe the Defendant's acts or omissions that may rise to a level beyond negligence. He therefore dismisses the request for punitive damages without prejudice. Judge Hillman turns to the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs allegations pleading a class action. The Plaintiffs describe two classes, the New Jersey Parent Class and New Jersey Student Class. They include in these respective classes the parents and legal guardians of students in New Jersey school districts that ingested Guida-Seibert contaminated milk and the students that ingested the contaminated milk. While they named in the complaint are all parents of children and children in the Camden City School District, the Plaintiffs extend the class to "other such school districts within the State of New Jersey as discovery may reveal. Because he is dismissing all of the claims brought by the parents as individuals, Judge Hillman examines the class allegations referring only to the student class. First, the Defendant argues that the nature of the Plaintiffs' personal injury allegations will require an individualized analysis. Judge Hillman opines that resolution of the question of predominance and superiority requires consideration of the facts of the case. He says discovery will inform the issue of predominance, so striking the class allegations at this stage on these grounds is premature. The Defendant next urges that the Court should strike the class allegations because the Plaintiffs' class description is a fail-safe class. Assuming without deciding that the current class definition is fail-safe, Judge Hillman refuses to strike the class allegations on these grounds. At this stage, he says he is not convinced that no amount of class discovery could permit the Plaintiffs to refine their definition so as to not be fail-safe. As such, it is not appropriate to strike the class allegations as fail-safe at this time. The Plaintiffs may be able to refine their class definition. Under the facts of the case, analysis of the question is best left to the class certification stage. The Defendant may raise this argument at the class certification stage. Finally, the Defendant argues that the Court should strike the class allegations based on the Rules Enabling Act. It claims that New Jersey law conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), abridging the rights of the minor children in the action and enlarging the rights of the parents. Consistent with the New Jersey caselaw that the Defendant cites, Judge Hillman holds that the Court has the authority to comply with the requirements of the New Jersey Court rules requiring judicial approval of settlements on behalf of minor children. While he will not strike the class allegations on these grounds at this time, he acknowledges that there are public policy considerations here that relate to binding a minor to a settlement. Thus, he reserves final determination of whether this will pose an issue with respect to certification of the class, with consideration of the predominance or superiority requirements of a class action, at the class certification stage. For the reasons he expressed, Judge Hillman grants the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss the complaint and denies the Defendant's motion to strike. He dismisses the Negligence (Count One) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count Three) claims against all the Defendants. He also dismisses the New Jersey Products Liability Act claim (Count Two) on behalf of the parents in their individual capacities. The New Jersey Products Liability Act claim (Count Two) brought on behalf of the minor children will proceed as the only remaining claim. An appropriate order will be entered. A full-A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r74732j from Leagle.com. JOSEPH D. LENTO, ESQUIRE -- jdlento@lentolawgroup.com -- SAMUEL D. JACKSON, ESQUIRE -- sdjackson@Lentolawgroup.com -- LENTO LAW GROUP, P.C., MT. LAUREL, NJ, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. PHILIP A. GOLDSTEIN, ESQUIRE -- pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com -- McGUIREWOODS LLP, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, Attorneys for Defendant The Guida-Seibert Dairy Company. HAAS GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Magee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haas Group International, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Bailey Magee, Elijah Dean Magee, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Haas Group International, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2023-00335381-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 28, 2023). The case type is stated "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Haas Group International is a provider of chemical supply chain management services to the commercial aerospace, airline, military, automotive, energy, pharmaceutical, electronics and other markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com HANESBRANDS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SHAWNA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANESBRANDS INC., Defendant, Case 1:23-cv-01818 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2023) alleges that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff on a weekly basis without express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff Collins was employed by the Defendant as sales merchandiser. HANESBRANDS, INC. manufactures apparels and clothing products. The Company produces underwear, t-shirts, sport shirts, socks, bras, thermals, sweatshirts, sleepwear, and shoes for men, women, and children. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com - and - Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue Suite 1810 New York, NY 10019 Tel: (718) 669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com HARBORONE BANK: Meaden Sues Over Improper Charges ------------------------------------------------- Rita Meaden, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HARBORONE BANK, Case No. 1:23-cv-10467-DLC (D. Mass., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought against the Defendant arising from its routine and improper practice of assessing more than one insufficient funds fee ("NSF Fee") on the same transaction. HarborOne customers have been injured by the bank's improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from their accounts in violation HarborOne's clear contractual commitments. The Plaintiff seeks to end HarborOne's abusive and predatory practices and force it to refund all of these improper charges. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. HarborOne's Account Documents allow HarborOne to charge a single $35 NSF Fee when a transaction is returned for insufficient funds or paid despite insufficient funds. HarborOne breaches its Account Documents by charging more than one $35 NSF Fee on the same transaction, since the contract explicitly states—and reasonable consumers understand—that the same transaction can only incur a single NSF Fee, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Brockton, Massachusetts. HarborOne is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 101 Federal Street, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 203-8459 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harman International Industries, Incorporated. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-01756 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Harman International Industries, commonly known as Harman -- https://www.harman.com/ -- is an American audio electronics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal HATTS OFF: Faces $60M Class Action Over Alleged Child Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Russell & Carolyn Jarvis of Global News report that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against one of Ontario's largest youth group home operators alleging that kids were treated in an "abusive" manner and the company's key figures "enriched" themselves at the expense of vulnerable children in their care. The Ontario-based law firm Siskinds LLP has launched the suit and is seeking $50 million in general and special damages and an additional $10 million in punitive damages on behalf of children or young persons who have received residential care from Hatts Off. The lead plaintiff is Jamar Morrison, who was 12 years old when he was placed in a Hamilton-area group home operated by Hatts Off. Morrison said he is still traumatized from his time as a resident and often wakes from "night terrors" with images of kids being physically restrained and screams still echoing in his mind. The proposed legal action, he hopes, will be a "wake up" call for all for-profit group home companies across Ontario's child-welfare system. "Children before money, " Morrison said. "That's what the overall message is. Children need to feel safe. They need to be cared for. They need to feel loved." The class action has not been certified and none of the allegations have been proven in court. Hatts Off operates nine children's group homes and at least 16 foster homes across southern Ontario. These homes take in children and youth who've experienced abuse or have complex mental health needs. Gordon Naylor, the company's founder and president, declined to address a detailed list of questions about the proposed legal action. "This lawsuit is baseless and unjustified," he said in a statement. "Should it move forward, we will defend ourselves against these unproven and unsubstantiated allegations." Naylor added that the company passed all ministry inspections, which are frequent and unannounced. He also said any issues that arise are dealt with in a timely manner. "Any incidents that happen in residential care are reported and investigated by the Children's Aid Societies and Ministry, " he said. Filed in Ontario Superior Court Feb. 27, the lawsuit alleges a litany of ways in which the group home operator is alleged to have provided an inadequate "standard of care" at its children's residences. Some of the failures, according to the suit, included allegations that Hatts Off did not have appropriate policies in place to prevent "physical, sexual or psychological abuse" and to ensure youth received appropriate medical and therapeutic treatment. "[Youths] were treated in an abusive and demeaning manner, and systematically denied their dignity and basic rights," the statement of claim reads. "This behaviour continued for years, despite evidence which was known to the Defendants." The lawsuit also alleges youths dealt with poorly trained and poorly-supervised staff and there was a lack of resources to meet the kids' "emotional, developmental and educational needs." "[Hatts Off] residences were chaotic and hostile and characterized by the frequent use of violent physical restraints and unlawful punishments by staff," the lawsuit reads. "[Kids] lived in fear." Youths formally in the care of Hatts Off, according to the lawsuit, suffered "significant physical, mental, emotional" damage including depression, anxiety, emotional distress, feelings of humiliation and degradation. This led to medical or psychological treatment and suicide attempts or suicide, according to the lawsuit. "The damage suffered by people can really be something that pervades every aspect of their life," said Tyler Planeta, a lawyer with Siskinds LLP. "There's also these lost opportunities to heal and to grow and be comfortable in your own skin growing up." While Morrison is currently the sole plaintiff more people are expected to join the class-action suit, according to Planeta. "We're interested in speaking with anybody who has been in the care of Hatts Off," he said. "We want to hear their stories." Morrison was previously featured in a Global News investigation that revealed troubling allegations inside Hatts Off, including underqualified staff, the unnecessary use of physical restraints and overmedication. Hatts Off workers physically restrained him on the ground or against a wall, he said. He also witnessed repeated physical assaults on other residents, according to the statement of claim. While Hatts Off provided art therapy sessions, the few Morrison took part in were useless in helping confront his complex trauma, he said. Morrison said he tried to take his own life after being on a steady regimen of pills. "I actually did hang myself in the closet, and a staff (member) came in, walked in and found me, " Morrison previously told Global News. The proposed lawsuit also takes aim at the expansive real estate holdings of the Naylor family and companies linked to them. In addition to Gordon Naylor, his daughter Chief Operating Officer Bronwyn Naylor and Aladine Hanna, the company's director of finance, are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Naylor Nine Holdings - a company linked to members of the Naylor family - is also named. The lawsuit alleges the defendants "diverted funds, " which were meant for kids in their care to "real estate holdings" meant to "personally enrich" Gordon Naylor. Global News previously reported that real estate owned by the Naylor family and companies linked to them is worth roughly $55 million, according to tax assessments, property records and market evaluations. Among the properties is a waterfront vacation home in the Florida Keys owned by Gordon Naylor that's valued at $1.76 million. Hatts Off COO Bronwyn Naylor said the only "practical way to open programs" has been to purchase homes "often through personal debt and to rent those homes to Hatts Off." "We will not be commenting on the value of the Naylor family's private real estate assets, as there are multiple private sources of income that have no relation to Hatts Off," she said. Meanwhile, the company said its residential homes are "chronically underfunded, while we work with the most vulnerable and complex cases." Following the series of stories on Hatts Off, the company served a libel notice on Global News last month, objecting to the stories and alleging they included false and defamatory statements. Global News has responded to the libel notice and indicated it believes it acted responsibly in publishing the articles and will defend against any lawsuit. "Every incident that happened in the past was addressed and we have effective policies and guidelines to prevent their recurrence," Naylor said. "We are constantly improving and reviewing our practices to best protect the young people in our care." Hatts Off said it could not comment on specific cases, citing confidentiality reasons, but said Hatts Off provides staff with extensive training. "Harsh and degrading consequences would never be tolerated," the company said. Allegations of inappropriate treatment of residents are thoroughly investigated. Physical restraints, the company said, are only used as a last resort when the safety of a child or other person is at immediate risk and after "lesser intrusive measures - like de-escalation techniques - have been attempted." In response to the allegations of overmedication, the company said it relied on qualified, experienced, and reputable health care professionals to diagnose and determine appropriate treatments for its residents and to monitor their progress. "It would be well beyond the scope of a responsible residential care provider to attempt to question or otherwise interfere with a treatment plan for one of its residents, especially if that plan were to include the prescription of medication," the company said. Hatts Off employs a full-time psychotherapist and has contracts with five other psychotherapists who offer a variety of counselling methods, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, art therapy, trauma therapy and addiction counselling, among others. In the meantime, Morrison is looking forward to his story and others being heard in court. "I want the people responsible to not feel as invincible as they feel," he said. "I don't want it to be swept under the rug." [GN] HOFF USA CORP: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoff USA Corp. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hoff USA Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-01542 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hoff -- http://www.hoffc.com/-- has played an important role in the Northwest's building products industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Customers' Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Godfrey at biv.com reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Home Depot of Canada Inc. violated customers' privacy by sharing personal information with tech giant Meta Platforms Inc. A notice of civil claim seeking certification as a class action was filed with the B.C. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, naming B.C. resident Lasse Hvitved as its lead plaintiff against Home Depot, whom he bought a shower head from last year. According to the legal filings, Hvitved bought the shower head at a Vancouver Home Depot and opted to receive an electronic receipt by email. Hvitved has had a Facebook account since at least 2018 when, according to the notice of civil claim, Home Depot began collecting customers' personal information at store checkouts to issue electronic receipts. "What customers did not know was that their email address and other information about their purchase was shared with Meta, the company behind the Facebook social network," stated the legal filings. The lawsuit claims Home Depot shared the personal information with Meta to determine how effective its online advertising was. Hvitved claimed this was done through Facebook's "offline conversions" tool, through which Home Depot provided Meta email addresses and information about their purchases, including the date and time, the amount spent and the type of items bought. The lawsuit claimed customers were not asked for consent to share that information and it was done without any notice to customers. The lawsuit comes on the heels of an investigation by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), which released its report on Jan. 26. While Home Depot reportedly denied sharing information with Facebook in the past, it confirmed to the OPC that shared that data with the company. The OPC found that Home Depot did not ensure valid consent to do so. "Even though our use of a Meta analytics tool involved the use of only non-sensitive information i.e., the department in which a purchase was made, as a precaution, we stopped using the tool once the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada expressed concerns about it in October 2022," a spokesperson for Home Depot Canada told Global News in a January statement. "We value and respect the privacy of our customers and are committed to the responsible collection and use of information. We'll continue to work closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada." Home Depot has not filed a response to the proposed class-action lawsuit as of press time. [GN] HUNTER WARFIELD: Karr Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Karr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00049-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hunter Warfield Inc. -- https://cp.hunterwarfield.com/ -- is operating as a debt collection company.[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 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Antilock Brake Settlement Claims Filing Due July 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by July 7, 2023. Hyundai agreed to a class action settlement that will put to bed claims the company manufactured and sold Kia vehicles with defective antilock brake systems that can cause an engine fire. The class action settlement benefits all current and former owners or lessees of a Kia vehicle equipped with the defective antilock brake systems, including those purchased abroad while on active military duty. [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Lawyers Not Backing Off Immobilizers Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carly Schaffner at autonews.com reports that the software fix developed by Hyundai and Kia to help protect vehicles it sold without immobilizers from being easily hotwired does not solve the problem for litigants in class-action lawsuits across the U.S. whose cars have already been stolen, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys told Automotive News. Matt Van Fleet, a senior trial attorney with MLG Attorneys at Law in California, who represents clients in a class-action lawsuit on the issue, called the move "commendable" but not enough to stop the litigation across the country. "We're thankful that Hyundai and Kia are recognizing that there's a problem, but the bell's already been rung," Van Fleet said. "The fix does nothing to address the thousands of dollars that our clients have had to dole out to repair the damage caused to these vehicles after they've been stolen, if they're able to recover their cars at all," he said. A spokesperson for Hyundai told Automotive News the company is committed to the security of its customers and plans to continue its ongoing support of the communities affected by this theft issue. But he did not comment directly on whether the automaker would address the damages caused to consumers who claim their vehicles have already been stolen. The class-action lawsuit, Van Fleet said, also addresses the loss of value to the affected cars. Even if the vehicles are recovered, they are now "stigmatized," and owners are unable to sell them on the open market, he said. An estimated 8.4 million Hyundai and Kia vehicles on the road lack engine immobilizers. Many of the affected cars are also now uninsurable. Insurance giants State Farm and Progressive recently said they would not write new policies for certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles in regions where theft was rampant. Van Fleet said that move by insurers was likely the motivation behind Hyundai and Kia issuing the fix. "They've known about this defect for quite a while now, and they've done nothing to address the problem," he said. "It's only been until the cars have been dropped from insurance companies that they've stepped in and announced a fix." The class action was filed in the Central District of California and is now part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. An MDL consolidates independent lawsuits spanning multiple federal courts that rely on common facts and seek similar damages. The cases in the MDL have been transferred to Orange County, where pretrial proceedings can take place closer to the automakers' U.S. headquarters. Currently 16 cases comprise the MDL. The judge has not formally assigned a lead attorney for the case. "There are a number of cases around the United States," Van Fleet said. "As time progresses, we're going to see more of them added to this consolidated case in Orange County," he said. "As more cases come on, the pressure is going to be put on Hyundai and Kia to come to the table with some meaningful settlement," Van Fleet said. "And we would like to see that to happen within a year or two." [GN] ICARE ACQUISITION: Data Breach Settlement Claims Filing Due May 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by May 1, 2023. iCare acquisition agreed to pay $3 million to end claims the company failed to protect patient data during a January 2021 data breach against 20/20 Eye Care Network and 20/20 Hearing Care Network. The class action settlement benefits a class of individuals who received a notification about the January 2021 data breach from either 20/20 Eye Care Network or 20/20 Hearing Care Network. [GN] ICON OUTDOORS LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Icon Outdoors, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Icon Outdoors, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01711 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Icon Outdoors LLC is a company that operates in the Sporting Goods industry.[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 ISLIDE INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ISlide, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ISlide, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01715 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ISlide -- https://islideusa.com/ -- is an online premium athletic footwear marketplace intended to sell custom designer athletic sandals.[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 ISOLVED HCM: BIPA Suit Settlement Claims Filing Due April 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by April 11, 2023. iSolved agreed to pay almost $2.5 million to resolve claims the company violated biometric privacy law by allegedly collecting and storing its employees' fingerprints without first getting consent or providing required disclosures. The class action settlement benefits individuals who, within the state of Illinois, scanned their finger using an iSolved time clock and who had their biometric information subsequently shared or stored by the company between Nov. 7, 2014, and Nov. 11, 2022. [GN] JACOBSON GROUP (USA): Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jacobson Group (USA) LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Jacobson Group (USA) LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01665 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jacobson Group (USA) -- https://jacobsononline.com/ -- is a Forbes Best Recruiting Firm with nearly 50 years in the insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com JAMES + JAMES LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against James + James LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. James + James LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01699 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. James + James -- https://carpenterjames.com/ -- is one of the fastest growing furniture companies in the country.[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 LA FERMIERE: Piotroski Sues Over Yogurt's French Representations ---------------------------------------------------------------- KARIN PIOTROSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA FERMIERE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01578-PKC-LGD (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its yogurt products. The Defendant's marketing, labeling, and sale of the products mislead reasonable consumers to believe that the yogurts are made in France, by using: (1) the name of the product itself – La Fermiere – a visibly French word meaning "the lady farmer"; and (2) "Naturally French" on the label. Unfortunately for consumers, the French representations are false and misleading because the products are manufactured in New York, says the suit. La Fermiere, Inc. is a family-owned French yogurt and desserts company, with its principal place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Sue J. Nam, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com snam@reesellp.com - and - Charles D. Moore, Esq. 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55412 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com LONGFIN CORP: Court Orders Release of Funds in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Upon review of the Motion to Release Funds and attached Exhibits submitted by the Class Counsel in the case, IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 1:18-cv-2933-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders: a. that Epiq Global will be reimbursed $48,402.70 for its fees and expenses, to be paid from the $223,172.64 recovered by the Class Counsel in January 2023; and b. that Epiq will distribute $17,277.47 from the January 2023 Recovery to Levi & Korsinsky, LLP for its expenses. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4hdneetv from Leagle.com. LOWE'S HOME: Summary Judgment Bid in Rodrigue Class Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SERGE RODRIGUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC; LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-1127 (RPK) (PK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. New York Labor Law Section 191(1)(a) authorizes an employer to pay manual workers biweekly, instead of weekly, if the Commissioner of the New York Department of Labor gives the employer authorization to do so. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. obtained such an authorization. But the company later changed its corporate form and became Lowe's Home Centers, LLC. The Plaintiff asserts that he is a manual worker and that Lowes's Home LLC pays him biweekly. He alleges that Lowe's Home LLC is violating New York Labor Law by doing so, because the biweekly-pay authorization obtained by Lowe's Home Inc. does not cover Lowe's Home LLC. The Plaintiff began working at Lowe's Home LLC in 2016 as a "Customer Service Associate." He alleges in the complaint that he spends at least a quarter of his time performing physical tasks and is paid on a biweekly basis. He also asserts that Lowe's Home LLC employs approximately 10,000 people in New York, a majority of whom are manual workers paid on a biweekly basis. The Plaintiff filed the operative class action complaint against Lowe's Home LLC and Lowe's Companies, Inc. in June 2020. He raised two claims: First, he alleged that the Defendants violated New York Labor Law Section 191(1)(a) by paying him and the other manual workers on a biweekly, rather than weekly, basis. Second, he alleged that defendants violated New York Labor Law Section 195(3) by failing to provide him and the other manual workers with accurate wage statements. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued that they were entitled to pay the Plaintiff on a biweekly basis because the Commissioner for the New York Department of Labor had previously authorized Lowe's Home Inc. to do so. They also argued that the Plaintiff did not identify an inaccuracy or actionable omission in his pay statements. Judge Kovner dismissed the wage-statement claim, but she declined to dismiss the claim relating to biweekly pay, reasoning that the Defendants' arguments based on the New York Department of Labor's authorization letter were improper at the motion-to-dismiss stage because that document was not attached to the complaint or amenable to judicial notice. The parties then engaged in expedited discovery relating to the authorization-letter defense. The Defendants now move for summary judgment. They renew their argument that the New York Department of Labor's authorization letter to Lowe's Home Inc. permits them to pay their manual workers on a biweekly basis. The Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should be denied because the authorization letter applies to Lowe's Home Inc., and does not shield Lowe's Home LLC or its parent. Judge Kovner grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. She explains that New York Labor Law generally requires employers to pay manual workers weekly and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned, but it contains an exception: the New York Commissioner of Labor may authorize an employer to pay less frequently than weekly but not less frequently than semi-monthly. The Commissioner granted such an authorization to Lowe's Home Inc. in 1999. Then, in 2013, Lowe's Home Inc. converted under North Carolina law into Lowe's Home LLC. Whether the Defendants violated New York Labor Law by paying manual workers on a biweekly basis therefore depends on whether Lowe's Home LLC is a different "employer" from its predecessor entity, Lowe's Home Inc. Judge Kovner also holds that the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Lowe's Home Inc.'s conversion into Lowe's Home, LLC did not create a new "employer." She applies North Carolina law to determine the effects of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.'s conversion into a limited liability company. North Carolina law makes clear that Lowe's Home LLC is not a different employer from Lowe's Home Inc. Because Lowe's Home Inc. "continues in existence" as Lowe's Home LLC, the authorization letter to Lowe's Home Inc. applies to the restructured company despite the change of name and corporate form. The Plaintiff cites no applicable provision of law in contending that Lowe's Home Inc. has ceased to exist, but he suggests defendants conceded the point, invoking a statement of a corporate witness that Lowe's Home Inc. "was no longer the employer" after its conversion into Lowe's Home LLC. For substantially the same reason, Judge Kovner says the Plaintiff fails to establish that the Defendants should be judicially estopped from arguing that Lowe's Home Inc. continues in existence as Lowe's Home LLC. The Defendants have not taken a "clearly inconsistent" position in other lawsuits by arguing that Lowe's Home LLC, rather than Lowe's Home Inc., should be the named party in litigation after the company's conversion, and, in any event, the Plaintiff has not shown that any court accepted the position that he asserts is contradictory. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7z7nrvr from Leagle.com. MANAGEMENT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Koutsofios Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE KOUTSOFIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANAGEMENT HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A MEDPRO HEALTHCARE STAFFING, Case No. 0:23-cv-60401-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Mar. 1, 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 Koutsofios was employed by the Defendants as assistant nurse recruiter. MANAGEMENT HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A MEDPRO HEALTHCARE STAFFING provides diversified medical staffing solutions. [BN] C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 235-3401 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Gignac v. Blackbaud -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gignac, et al., v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00419 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Gignac Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lZfHLH at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Graifman v. Blackbaud ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graifman., v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04512 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Graifman Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m0BiTK at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Imhof v. Blackbaud ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Imhof v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00003 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Imhof Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XUmzr1 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Lofton v. Blackbaud -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lofton, et al., v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04510 (D.S.C., Filed Dec 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Lofton Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xJtxEt at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Mamie Estes Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lWGnwq at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Ill. Users Set to Receive 2nd Lawsuit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC7 Chicago Digital Team reports that there's another check coming in March for more than 1 million Facebook users in Illinois who applied to collect a settlement stemming from a class action lawsuit. The first round of paper checks and electronic payments began going out on May 9, 2022. Nearly 1.3 million people successfully filed claims in a $650 million privacy settlement. The lawsuit was filed over Facebook's collection and storing of biometric data of Illinois users without proper consent. Those covered by the settlement include Facebook users located in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after June 7, 2011. Claimants must have been a resident of Illinois for at least 183 days (six months) to be eligible. After all checks are issued, each person should get about $428. [GN] MIC GENERAL: Loughran Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Franklin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Christian Loughran, Plaintiff v. MIC General Insurance Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CV-23-00108-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz.), Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants the Defendant's Expedited Motion to Stay Proceedings. The case concerns the Plaintiff's class action efforts to enforce the Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage policies issued to him by the Defendant. After removing the action to federal court, the Defendant filed an unopposed Motion to Stay pending the Arizona Supreme Court's disposition on two certified questions relating to the Plaintiff's breach of insurance contract and bad faith claims under A.R.S. Section 20-259.01 in Franklin v. CSAA General Insurance Company, No. 2:22-cv-00540-JJT (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2022). The present Court has already issued stays in two cases with similar fact patterns -- Creasman v. Farmers Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:22-cv-01820-DJH (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2022), and Whitehead v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, 2:22-cv-01978-DJH (D. Ariz. Dec. 28, 2022). Thus, Judge Humetewa incorporates the Court's findings in Creasman and Whitehead and grants the Defendant's Motion. Judge Humetewa says the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Citing Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005), she explains that courts must weigh the following "competing interests" to determine whether to issue a Landis stay: "[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and question of law which could be expected to result from a stay." As they do in Creasman and Whitehead, Judge Humetewa finds that the three competing interests set forth in Lockyer weigh in favor of staying the present proceedings. First, there is no evidence before the Court that the Plaintiff will suffer injury due to a stay. Second, absent a stay, the Defendant argues it faces substantial risk of costly and time consuming motion practice and discovery, which could be all for naught. This district has recognized such evidence of hardship in the class action setting and found it weighs in favor of a stay. Finally, a stay would promote the orderly course of justice. Moreover, Judge Humetewa considers Franklin to be a "lead" case for numerous cases in the District of Arizona that raise similar issues under A.R.S. Section 20-259.01. As noted in the Defendant's Motion, many of these cases have been stayed pending the resolution of the certification request in Franklin. Thus, she will stay proceedings in the present matter because it relates to the certified questions and resolution of these questions could materially impact this Court's assessment of the Plaintiff's claims in his Class Action Complaint. Accordingly, Judge Humetewa grants the Defendant's Expedited Motion to Stay Proceedings. She stays the matter as it relates to the Arizona Supreme Court's ultimate disposition on the accepted certified questions that were proposed in Franklin v. CSAA General Insurance Company, No. 2:22-cv-00540-JJT (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2022). The parties must file a joint notice of decision within five days of the Arizona Supreme Court's resolution of the certified questions. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n9a76ty from Leagle.com. MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Final Deal OK in Antitrust Suit Set on June 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- TopClass Actions reports that the final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June 1, 2023 in the case-captioned In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:07-cv-5944 JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Mitsubishi Electric CRT antitrust $33M class action settlement. Mitsubishi agreed to a $33 million class action settlement to resolve claims it worked with other companies to raise cathode ray tube (CRT) costs. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased a CRT product (CRT television or CRT computer monitor) from a retailer other than the manufacturer between March 1, 1995, and Nov. 25, 2007, in various states. States covered in the settlement are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. This list includes nine new states not included in previous settlements. The CRT multidistrict class action lawsuit claims that Mitsubishi conspired with other manufacturers, such as LG, Hitachi and Samsung, to raise and fix the price of CRTs. As a result of this alleged scheme, consumers were forced to pay a higher price for CRT televisions and monitors, the class action lawsuit contends. Mitsubishi Electric is an electronic products manufacturer based in Japan. The company is in the same group as Mitsubishi Motors, an automotive manufacturer. Mitsubishi hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $33 million to resolve the class action lawsuit against it. With older settlements, this brings the total CRT settlement amount to over $547 million. Under the terms of the Mitsubishi CRT settlement, class members can receive a proportional cash payment based on the number of eligible products purchased. Documentation of CRT purchases may be required to validate claims but is not required to be submitted with claim forms. Class members who claim a larger number of CRT units will receive a larger share of the net settlement fund. Standard CRT televisions (less than 30 inches) will be weighted as 1 CRT unit, large CRT televisions (larger than 30 inches) will be weighted as 4.3 CRT units and CRT monitors will be weighted as 3 CRT units. Exact payments will vary, but claimants are guaranteed to receive a minimum payment of at least $10. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 14, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June 1, 2023. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 13, 2023. Claimants who submitted claim forms for previous CRT settlements do not need to file an additional claim unless they wish to claim additional purchases. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased a CRT product (CRT television or CRT computer monitor) from a retailer other than the manufacturer between March 1, 1995, and Nov. 25, 2007, in various states. States covered in the settlement are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Documentation of CRT purchases may be required to validate claims. 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 06/13/2023 Case Name In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:07-cv-5944 JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 06/01/2023 Settlement Website crtclaims.com Claims Administrator CRT Claims c/o The Notice Company P.O. Box 778 Hingham, MA 02043 info@crtclaims.com 800-649-0963 Class Counsel Mario N Alioto Lauren C Capurro TRUMP ALIOTO TRUMP & PRESCOTT LLP Defense Counsel Terrence J Truax Michael T Brody JENNER & BLOCK LLP[GN] MONTEREY BAY: Faces Class Suit Over "Red Listing" American Lobsters ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eve Zuckoff at ctpublic.org reports that four Massachusetts lobstermen have filed a class action suit against the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Marine Stewardship Council, groups that urged distributors and grocery stores to avoid purchasing lobster because of the fishery's impact on North Atlantic right whales. "We've always been like the punching bag for, like, the whale people. So I'm glad we're finally striking back," said plaintiff Jarrett Drake, a lobsterman who fishes out of New Bedford, "because it gives us a chance to try to at least defend ourselves." In September, the seafood watch groups argued that "red listing" American lobster is necessary because entanglement in trap pot gear used for lobster fishing is a leading cause of death for the critically endangered whales. Their population now stands around 340. The "Red List" is used by more than 25,000 restaurants, stores, and distributors to help guide purchasing and menu choices. "When [Montery Bay Aquarium] chooses to tag a product as one to be avoided ("red-list") on Seafood Watch, it acts with near certainty that the companies it collaborates with will immediately discontinue that product," the plaintiffs say in their complaint. After Gulf of Maine lobster was "red-listed," Whole Foods, Hello Fresh, Blue Apron, and others pulled U.S. lobster from their product lines, causing "monetary harm" to the lobstermen, according to the complaint. "We don't know what the long term economic impacts are going to be because it just happened," said Beth Casoni, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association. "But we are very concerned for the future of our fisheries and our lobstermen ability to earn a living." In an email, a spokesperson for the Monterey Bay Aquarium called the lawsuit "meritless." "[It] ignores the extensive evidence that this fishery poses a serious risk to the survival of the endangered North Atlantic right whale, and it seeks to curtail the First Amendment rights of a beloved institution that educates the public about the importance of a healthy ocean," the spokesperson wrote. The plaintiffs, Arthur Sawyer, Jarrett Drake, Eric Meschino, and Bill Souza rely on trapping of lobsters in the northern Atlantic Ocean for their sole source of income and have been lobstering for a combined 146 years, according to the complaint. According to Casoni, the Maine Lobstermen's Association is looking into being an intervenor in the case and more lobstermen will be able to join. They're are seeking damages in excess of $75,000.[GN] NORTHWESTERN BUSINESS: Illegally Withheld College Transcripts ------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Haydock at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a new lawsuit claims Northwestern Business College has illegally withheld college transcripts from students who owe unpaid debts to the college, even though such practices have been made illegal in Illinois. Jasmine Chatman, on behalf of herself and others, filed a new class action lawsuit against Northwestern Business College (NBC) in Cook County Circuit Court on February 16. The complaint alleges Northwestern Business College in suburban Oak Park illegally withheld an unspecified amount of transcripts from students supposedly due to unpaid college debt. Northwestern Business College is not affiliated I'm any way with Northwestern University. The practice of withholding transcripts for any unpaid college debt, even library fines is a longstanding university tradition. It can mean any college debt, even something as seemingly trivial as a book fine or a parking ticket, can prevent students from having access to their transcripts. According to court documents, Chatman owed NBC for tuition that the college contends was unpaid at the time of her request in June 2022. Her transcripts were supposedly denied on multiple occasions. At that time, Illinois had recently passed laws prohibiting such practices. Illinois Senate Bill 3032, enacted late March 2022, made it illegal for any college or university in Illinois to withhold transcripts from students for any unpaid college debt. President Biden has proposed similar federal legislation. Chatman is also asserting that NBC is in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Protection Act having engaged in unfair business practices by allegedly misrepresenting their policy on releasing transcripts when there is unpaid college debt. She claims that as a result, she was unable to start school at Capella University for the term she applied for as she could not provide required transfer transcripts. In addition, she was required to pay multiple application fees to Capella each time she reapplied and was allegedly denied having her transcripts released from NBC to Capella. Chatman is demanding a trial by jury and is seeking actual and punitive damages as well as court costs and legal fees. Plaintiff is represented by attorney Michael W. Drew, Neighborhood Legal, of Chicago. [GN] OHIO: Northern District Court Dismisses Lenz v. Chambers-Smith, APA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David A. Ruiz of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismisses the case, JASON LENZ, Plaintiff v. ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01359 (N.D. Ohio). Pro se Plaintiff Lenz filed this in forma pauperis action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Director Annette Chambers-Smith, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) Chief Hearing Officer Michael Anderson, and Lorain Correctional Institution (LCI) Warden Jennifer Gillece Black. He named each Defendant in their official capacities. The Plaintiff filed this action purportedly challenging his post release control. Although the Complaint and the pages of materials submitted with it are unclear, the Plaintiff appears to contend that he and other prisoners are being illegally subjected to post release control in connection with their sentences and in violation of their civil rights. The Plaintiff was released from LCI on Sept. 16, 2022, and he is currently under APA supervision. In his purported class action, the Plaintiff appears to seek termination of his post release control and $200,000 in damages. As an initial matter, Judge Ruiz states that the Plaintiff cannot bring the action on behalf of anyone other than himself. The Sixth Circuit has made clear that prisoners proceeding pro se may not represent other prisoners in federal court, citing Marr v. Michigan, 1996 WL 205582, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 1996). Upon review, Judge Ruiz finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed. He says federal courts have drawn careful lines between relief properly considered in a habeas corpus action and relief that is properly sought in a civil rights action. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), he says the Supreme Court made clear that when a plaintiff is challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence and the relief he seeks is immediate or speedier release, he must seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 rather than relief in a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights action. In the present case, the Plaintiff is challenging the post release control portion of his sentence and is seeking to have that portion of his sentence terminated. To that extent, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Additionally, to the extent the Plaintiff seeks damages, the Complaint fails. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994), to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid under Section 1983, a plaintiff must first show that the conviction or sentence at issue has already been reversed on direct appeal or called into question by a court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. In the Plaintiff's action, he seeks to invalidate a portion of his sentence, but he has not alleged or demonstrated that the sentence has been reversed or called into question in any way as articulated in Heck. The Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a cognizable civil rights claim. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ruiz dismisses the action in its entirety under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. He grants the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. He certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from his decision could not be taken in good faith. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bpkye3x from Leagle.com. ORIGINAL SOFT: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Donet Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARICELA DONET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AN ORIGINAL SOFT PRETZEL FACTORY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 151917/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, shipphillypretzels.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a) the website is not properly coded to alert users when a product has been added to the cart function; (b) the website does not contain proper navigation links or headings; and (c) the website is not properly coded to read each link. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. An Original Soft Pretzel Factory, Inc. is an online retail company doing business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com PARALLAX MANAGEMENT: Parker Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONIQUE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARALLAX MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a POLEKATZ NWI, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00072 (N.D. Ind., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law and unlawful tip deductions and underpayment of wages in violation of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Ms. Parker has worked at Polekatz NWI as an exotic dancer from approximately November 2020 until the present. Parallax Management Corp., doing business as Polekatz Northwest Indiana (NWI), is an adult entertainment strip club operator, located at 9148 Melton Rd., Gary, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anastasia Pavich, Esq. PAVICH LAW GROUP P.C. 30 W. Monroe St. Suite 1310 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 690-8400 E-mail: apavich@pavichlawgroup.com - and - Bradley Manewith, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 993-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com PEPLINSKI GROUP: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Skinner Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAWN SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PEPLINSKI GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-10495-LJM-JJCG (E.D. Mich., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid straight time wages pursuant to Michigan common law. Ms. Skinner was employed by Peplinski in Baldwin, Michigan as a Competency-Evaluated Nursing Assistant from approximately 2009 until June of 2021. The Peplinski Group, Inc. is an operator of skilled nursing facilities in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Jennifer McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI Telephone: (248) 658-8951 Facsimile: (248) 542-6301 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com RBC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Holiday, Vacation --------------------------------------------------------------- Leo Almazora at wealthprofessional.ca reports that RBC Insurance Agency is facing a class action suit from a group of insurance advisors who say the firm failed to pay them the vacation and public holiday pay they deserved. According to a Superior Court of Justice in Ontario filing, the action seeks to represent former property & casualty insurance advisors from across seven provinces who were employed by RBC General. RBC General, a subsidiary of RBC that underwrote P&C insurance and sold it through employees licensed as insurance agents, was acquired by Aviva effective July 1, 2016. The proposed class for the action also includes current and former P&C insurance advisors employed by RBC Insurance Agency, a corporate insurance agency and RBC subsidiary that was formed following RBC General's acquisition. RBC IA is licensed to sell insurance products underwritten by insurance companies. As laid out in the document, the advisors were paid both a fixed annual base salary and variable compensation, including bonuses and commissions, based on their performance. According to the advisors who put the suit forward, their employer did not pay them vacation and public holiday pay on top of the variable compensation they were entitled to. The alleged actions breach employment standards legislation in the seven provinces where they were employed: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. "The plaintiff alleges that the terms of the Compensation Policy violate the ESL, which requires that variable compensation be treated as wages for the purposes of calculating the required vacation and public holiday pay," the court filing said. After consideration of alternative approaches to calculating pay - one used by the plaintiffs and the other by the defendants - the presiding judge certified the class action against RBC IA, though he modified some of the proposed common issues and proposed definition for the class. "There is some basis in fact that RBC General and RBC IA did not pay vacation or public holiday pay as required under the ESL," the document said.[GN] REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Health Info, Ramos Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS RAMOS, RIGOBERTO RAMOS, and ARGERE FRUDAKIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01490 (C.D. Cal., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Records Act. The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard their protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) stored within its information network and servers following a data breach that began no later than December 1, 2022. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated patients about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiffs and Class Members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the suit. Regal Medical Group, Inc. is a healthcare network providing medical services, headquartered in Northridge, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com - and - Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com REHOBOTH MCKINLEY: Data Breach Settlement Claims Filing Due May 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by May 9, 2023. Rehoboth McKinley Christian Health Care Services agreed to a class action settlement that resolves claims revolving around a 2021 data breach. The class action settlement benefits a class of individuals who received a notification around May 19, 2021, from Rehoboth McKinley Christian Health Care Services about a data breach discovered on Feb. 16, 2021. [GN] RHENIUM ALLOYS: Faces Simpson Suit Over Assembly Workers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- DELAINA SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RHENIUM ALLOYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00397 (N.D. Ohio, February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act and for retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an assembly worker at its North Ridgeville location from approximately February 2020 until January 2023. Rhenium Alloys, Inc., is a manufacturer of refractory metals and high temperature products, doing business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: C.D. Cal. Dismisses Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- mondaq.com reports 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.[GN] ROYAL BANK: Faces Another Class Suit Over Unpaid Holiday Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ James Langton at investmentexecutive.com reports that another Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) division is facing a class action over allegedly unpaid holiday and vacation pay from advisors with RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. (RBC IA). Earlier this year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a proposed class action against RBC Dominion Securities Inc. seeking vacation pay for the firm's advisors and their assistants. Now the same court has also certified a similar case against RBC IA on behalf of advisors in its property & casualty (P&C) division. None of the allegations have been proven in either case. The key issue in the newly-certified class action against RBC IA is whether the advisors' variable compensation should be treated as wages for the purpose of calculating vacation pay. While the firm's advisors did receive holiday pay based on the salary component of their compensation, the question is whether they are also entitled to vacation pay in connection with their variable compensation. "The P&C advisors allege that they were not paid vacation and public holiday pay on top of their variable compensation, in breach of the employment standards legislation of each of the seven provinces where they were employed," the court noted in its decision. Ultimately, the court certified the case as a class action, subject to certain modifications to the class definition and the proposed common issues.[GN] RUBY HOLLOW: Bid to Disqualify Parr Brown in McGowan Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GREGORY McGOWAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. GEOFF STANLEY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22cv6971 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Parr Brown Gee & Loveless from representing the Defendants. Certain shareholders of Chief Consolidated Mining Co. have brought a putative class action against Ruby Hollow and two of its managers, Geoff Stanley and Douglas Meadow, alleging that the Defendants misappropriated corporate funds and violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They have moved to disqualify the law firm Parr Brown from representing the Defendants on the ground that its members, including an attorney who has filed a notice of appearance in this action, are necessary witnesses or have access to information material to the action. Chief is a mining company with assets located in central Utah. In 2018, Ruby Hollow acquired a majority interest in Chief from LeadFX. As a part of that transaction, Ruby Hollow purchased debt owed by Chief to LeadFX ("2018 Debt Acquisition"). In 2019, Chief entered into a joint venture with Tintic Consolidated Metals, LLC in which Tintic paid $3.5 million to Chief in exchange for Chief giving Tintic some of its minerals and surface rights. The complaint alleges that the funds owed to Chief from the joint venture were diverted to Ruby Hollow to satisfy the obligations it assumed from LeadFX. In 2022, Chief's interest in the joint venture was sold to Osisko, a Canadian company, for more than $60 million. The complaint alleges that Ruby Hollow structured this transaction to benefit the Defendants, not other Chief shareholders. Parr Brown, which had represented Chief, ceased doing so after the Osisko Transaction. The Plaintiffs filed the action on Aug. 16, 2022. On Dec. 16, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter raising issues regarding motions by two Parr Brown attorneys -- Matthew Ball and D. Craig Parry -- to appear as counsel for the Defendants. After receiving a responsive letter from Messrs. Ball and Parry, an Order of December 22 directed the Plaintiffs to file a motion for disqualification if they wished to do so and set a briefing schedule for the motion. The Plaintiffs filed the motion on Jan. 13, 2023. The motion became fully submitted on February 1. The Plaintiffs have moved to disqualify Parr Brown and its attorneys on the ground that they are necessary witnesses. The parties have relied on New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7. Rule 3.7 prohibits a lawyer from acting as advocate before a tribunal in a matter in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact, subject to limited exceptions that do not apply in the case. The Plaintiffs contend that because Parr Brown now represents Ruby Hollow, it is "more likely than not" that the Parr Brown was involved in the 2018 Debt Acquisition and the Osisko Transaction. In their opposition to this motion, defense counsel states that Ruby Hollow became a client of Parr Brown in May of 2020, and that Parr Brown did not represent Ruby Hollow in its 2018 acquisition of Chief. Moreover, the defense counsel assert that Ruby Hollow did not discuss with Parr Brown the transactions complained of in this lawsuit. Judge Cote opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient showing that disqualification of Parr Brown is warranted at this stage of the lawsuit. She says the Plaintiffs' assertions as to their need for testimony from Parr Brown attorneys is entirely speculative. For these reasons, she denies the Plaintiffs' January 13 motion without prejudice to renewal if discovery reveals that testimony from Parr Brown attorneys is necessary and would substantially prejudice a party. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mry2cysf from Leagle.com. A.M. Richardson, P.C., Ambrose Madison Richardson, III -- arichardson@solblum.com -- New York, NY, for the Plaintiffs. Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Matthew J. Ball -- mball@parrbrown.com -- Salt Lake City, UT, for the Defendants. SCION GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JASON BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SCION GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01315 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Burton was employed by the Defendant as maintenance supervisor. The Scion Group LLC provides real estate services, such as facility and strategic planning, operations assessments, development consulting and property management to higher education institutions, foundations and private-sector providers of student housing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com SENIOR LINK: Zelaya Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Caregivers ---------------------------------------------------------- CORA ZELAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENIOR LINK 7 INC., a/k/a A+ SENIOR HOME, and MINERVA MARIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-20775 (S.D. Fla., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempted caregiver from February 9, 2023, to February 16, 2023. Senior Link 7 Inc., also known as A+ Senior Home, is an assisted living facility operator, with its place of business in Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: TCPA Settlement Claims Filing Due Set May 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by May 10, 2023. SmileDirectClub agreed to pay $2.95 million to resolve claims the company violated Florida telemarketing laws by sending consumers unsolicited advertising text messages. The class action settlement benefits a class of Florida residents who were sent a telemarketing text message from SmileDirectClub from between July 1, 2021, and Dec. 30, 2022. [GN] SPAIN: Faces Suit From Environmental Societies Over Sustainability ------------------------------------------------------------------ iberianlawyer.com reports that Ecija has advised the platform led by Greenpeace, Ecologists in Action and Friends of the Earth in its complaint before the European Commission for non-compliance with recycling targets. Víctor Moralo, partner of the firm, has lead this project. Víctor is a partner at Ecija in the areas of sustainability and environment. He has more than 19 years of experience in the sector, having advised on urban planning matters to the main public entities, private developers and banks in Spain, with special mention for his work on the most emblematic urban developments in Madrid. Ecija's sustainability area has assumed the legal direction of the largest collective environmental action in Spain to date: The complaint of the platform formed by 26 environmental organisations to Miterd before the European Commission for non-compliance with the recycling and preparation for reuse targets. The plaintiffs include environmental associations such as Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Accion, Amigos de la Tierra and Retorna, among others. The platform denounces the Miterd for not having adopted and promoted over the last few years the necessary measures to achieve the objectives required by the European Union, and for having delayed the transposition of European Directives such as Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 30 may, amending Directive 4/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, recently transposed by the spanish Government through Royal Decree 1055/2022, of 27 december, on packaging and packaging waste. The platform denounces the Congress of Deputies for admitting for processing Proposition of Law no. 122/000281 dated 12 december 2022, on the sustainability of the management of packaging and packaging waste, presented by the Popular Parliamentary Group in the Congress of Deputies. The Bill aims to amend Law 7/2022, of 8 April, on waste and contaminated soils for a circular economy, seven months after its publication, distorting the transposition into spanish law of Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council. In addition, the admission of the aforementioned bill was on 20 December, a few days before the transposition by the Spanish Government of Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which was done on 27 December 2022 through the approval of the Royal Decree on packaging and packaging waste.[GN] STATEWIDE RESTORATION: Faces Valencia Wage & Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOOVER VALENCIA and JESUS CAMPOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATEWIDE RESTORATION OF NEW YORK, INC., STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF NY, INC., and WAYNE NOEL, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01566 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. Mr. Valencia worked for the Defendants as a painter and construction worker from in or around October 2017 until on or around July 31, 2020 and from on or around June 21, 2021 until on or around June 3, 2022. Mr. Campos worked for the Defendants as a construction worker from on or around June 14, 2021 until on or around September 26, 2022. Statewide Restoration of New York, Inc. is a construction company, with its principal place of business located at 1574 Lakeland Ave, Suite 5, Bohemia, New York. Statewide Construction Services of NY, Inc. is a construction firm, with its principal place of business located at 33 Comac Loop, Suite 8, Ronkonkoma, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com SUMMIT UTILITIES: Faces Class-Action Over Billing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- jonesborosun.com reports that the transition of natural gas service from CenterPoint Energy to new owner Summit Utilities has not gone as well as promised this year, and a Little Rock law firm has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in hopes of forcing the Colorado-based company to fix problems in billing and other service issues. The Poynter Law Group accused Summit of not working in good faith and price-gouging its customers in a complaint filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court. If a judge approves of making the lawsuit a class action, all Summit customers in Arkansas would automatically become plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Summit has attributed the issues to a computer transition from CenterPoint, higher commodity natural gas prices because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the coronavirus pandemic, according to the complaint. Since January this year, hundreds of Summit's customers have complained of the following: Excessive prices for the purchase of natural gas and services through extraordinarily high monthly demands for payment through its monthly customer billing statements. "In fact, Summit's monthly bills demand payments of sums two to three to four times the amounts due to CERC prior to its purchase, and resulting transfer of service and billing to Summit within the transition period," according to the complaint. Summit fails to credit customers monthly payments either made directly to Summit or through autopay, although such payments have clearly been made by the customer. Thus, Summit is not properly accounting for their customer's monthly payments. Summit has enrolled customers into its autopay program and taken sums of money from customers without their knowledge and consent. The complaint said Summit customers should be allowed to withhold payments to the company until the issues have been resolved. No court date has been set.[GN] SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Teche Farm Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TECHE FARM SUPPLIES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, CORTEVA, INC., BASF SE, BASF CORP., and BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00267 (W.D. La., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 3 of the Clayton Act and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case arises from the Defendants' use of restrictive agreements disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products distributors and retailers to block the availability of crop protection products (CPPs) to farmers containing lower-priced generic versions. The Defendants made this to maintain their market dominance after their patent and regulatory protection of their CPPs expired. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in the market for the CPPs containing the relevant active ingredients (AIs), thereby artificially inflating the prices of such CPPs and of the CPPs manufactured by the Defendants' generic competitors. The Plaintiff and the Class member farmers who purchased CPPs containing the relevant AIs have been and continue to be injured by paying artificially inflated prices for such CPPs, for which they are entitled to compensation, says the suit. Teche Farm Supplies is a farming co-operative headquartered at 2100 Canal Street, Jeanerette, Louisiana. Syngenta Corporation is an agriculture company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC is an affiliate of Syngenta Crop Protection, AG based in Greensboro, North Carolina. Syngenta Crop Protection, AG is a chemical manufacturing company based in Basel, Switzerland. Corteva, Inc. is an agricultural chemical and seed company based in Indianapolis, Indiana. BASF SE is a multinational global chemical company headquartered in Ludwigshafen, Germany. BASF Corp. is the North American affiliate of BASF SE, headquartered at 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey. BASF Agricultural Products Group is a division of BASF SE, headquartered at 14385 West Port Arthur Road, Beaumont, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Kyle Oxford, Esq. Quinn M. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com koxford@burnscharest.com qburns@burnscharest.com - and - Korey Nelson, Esq. Amanda Klevorn, Esq. Hannah Quicksell, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal St. #1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504)-779-2845 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com aklevorn@burnscharest.com hquicksell@burnscharest.com TAP BTOWN: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Inman FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PHILIP B. INMAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TAP BTOWN, INC., NATHAN FINNEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01639-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind.), Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denies the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to approve settlement. The Plaintiffs moved for approval of the parties' settlement of the putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 203, et seq. The action is brought by Inman on behalf of himself and those similarly situated under the FLSA (collectively, "Inman"). The Defendants are The Tap Btown, Inc., a restaurant in Bloomington, Indiana, that does business as "The Tap," and Nathan Finney, The Tap's owner and operator. The Amended Complaint alleges that Inman has worked at The Tap as a server since Aug. 12, 2019. Inman alleges he was paid less than minimum wage for his hourly wages, but received tips in addition to his salary. He further alleges that he and the other allegedly similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid Servers at The Tap have been subject to unlawful tip pooling and tip credits. As a result, Inman contends that he and the other Server employees were owed a full minimum wage and return of certain tips contributed to the tip pool. The lawsuit seeks to recover the unpaid compensation that Inman alleges he is due pursuant to the FSLA, along with liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The parties report that they have reached a settlement agreement, for which Inman now seeks the Court's approval. Judge Barker states that FLSA collective action settlement agreements require judicial approval. A court may not approve a proposed settlement of a collective action without making some finding that the plaintiffs are similarly situated. Although neither the FLSA nor the Seventh Circuit has set forth criteria for determining whether employees are 'similarly situated,' courts in this district and around the country have settled on a two-step procedure for addressing this inquiry. At the first step, a proposed collective will be conditionally certified for the purpose of giving notice of suit to potential collective members if the named plaintiffs make a modest factual showing' that other employees exist who may be similarly situated. At the second step, after development of the record in discovery, the named plaintiffs must carry the stricter burden of showing that the potential collective members are in fact similarly situated to merit final certification of the collective. Judge Barker says the parties have taken the unusual step of requesting that the Court approves their settlement agreement for both the named and putative plaintiffs and dismisses the lawsuit with prejudice before the Court has conditionally certified the lawsuit as a collective action and before all collective action members have received notice and the opportunity to opt-in to the lawsuit. She finds that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement include the acknowledgement that Inman has not yet filed a motion seeking conditional certification of the putative collective action under FLSA Section 216(b). Inman's motion asserts that final certification of the collective is appropriate, yet he has not offered, nor has the Court located, any legal authorities in support of this proposed procedure. Inman's motion also references the proper procedures for such settlements. Nonetheless, he asserts that the parties have jointly stipulated to FLSA certification of 162 servers employed by The Tap from Aug. 18, 2019, through June 5, 2022. Judge Barker points out that this is not an action which the parties can unilaterally take; it is the Court -- not the parties even via their joint stipulation -- who must conditionally certify the class and issue notice to the putative members, in response to a properly made motion by the parties. After the deadline passes for putative members to opt-in to the suit, assuming the parties still want to settle the litigation, Inman may move for approval of a settlement and request a final certification of the collective action by the Court. Currently, the parties are not positioned to request the Court's approval of a proposed settlement. Accordingly, Inman's unopposed motion for our approval of the parties' proposed settlement must be denied. For these reasons, Judge Barker denies the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement without prejudice. She orders that the parties advise the Court within 30 days from the date of her Order of their intention either to (1) file a motion for conditional certification of the collective action, to begin the process of obtaining Court approval of their settlement agreement, or (2) abandon settlement and proceed to litigate the dispute. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8k5fp7 from Leagle.com. TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bixby Class Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADAM BIXBY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-59-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), Judge David L. Bunning of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington, grants Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Claims, and Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's Individual Claims. The dispute centers around an employee's allegation that his employer is interfering with his, and other similarly situated individuals', use of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601-2654. The employee, Bixby, alleges that the Defendants, his employer, improperly overcalculate employee leave under the FMLA. Bixby specifically alleges that the Defendants are not calculating accumulated leave by the actual hours worked by employees but rather they are standardizing a 40-hour work week and multiplying by that number. He asserts a single count in the Complaint: FMLA Interference under 29 U.S.C. Section 2617(b). He seeks class-wide equitable relief, class certification, several preliminary orders, as well as payment of reasonable attorney fees and costs on behalf of himself and the class. Bixby also filed a separate Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order that was later withdrawn because it was settled by the parties. The Defendants now assert that Bixby's individual and class claims should be dismissed because they are either waived or subject to arbitration per an agreement he entered as part of his employment. The parties do not dispute that they entered into a valid arbitration agreement; instead, they focus their arguments on the scope of the agreement and the arbitrability/waiver of the claims: whether the FMLA forbids enforcement of the agreement and whether the terms of the agreement exempt the class-wide injunctive relief Bixby seeks from arbitration. The parties' arbitration agreement contains a class action waiver which states that to the extent permitted by law, Bixby waives any right to bring on behalf of persons other than him/herself, or to otherwise participate with others in, any class or collective action. Bixby argues that (1) the FMLA does not allow for class action waivers, so the class action waiver constitutes an improper prospective waiver of his express FMLA rights and (2) the arbitration agreement exempts preliminary injunctions "in aid of arbitration" from the agreement. The Defendants disagree, they counter that (1) while the FMLA protects substantive rights, it allows waiver of procedural devices, such as class actions and (2) Bixby is incorrect in his interpretation of what constitutes "in aid of arbitration. As to class the class claims, Judge Bunning opines that Bixby's substantive rights are not impacted by the class action waiver. Instead, the class-action waiver merely limits arbitration to the two contracting parties. Simply put, the waiver limits the procedural way Bixby can assert his claims, but it does not stop Bixby from asserting his claims entirely, so it does not waive his substantive statutory rights. Thus, employees who do not sign individual arbitration agreements are free to sue collectively, and those who do sign individual arbitration agreements are not. Accordingly, Bixby's class claims are dismissed because he waived his procedural right to pursue class action claims under the FMLA in the arbitration agreement. Judge Bunning also opines that other than the general allegations in the Complaint, Bixby does not have any pending requests for injunctive relief pending before the Court. While Bixby did file a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on an individual basis, it was settled by the parties. Even assuming Bixby had filed a motion for class-wide injunctive relief, it would be inappropriate for the Court to consider it. In short, Bixby cannot request class-wide injunctive relief because he cannot pursue class claims and he has already received status quo relief as to his individual claims through the parties' agreement. As to the individual claims, the parties agree that Bixby's individual claims are subject to arbitration. They disagree as to whether his claims should be stayed or dismissed: Bixby indicates he is agreeable to this Court staying his individual claims, while Defendants argue his claims should be dismissed. Judge Bunning holds that he decides only whether Bixby's individual claims should be stayed or dismissed pending arbitration. Indeed, the Court has dismissed claims pending arbitration in the past. Because the Federal Arbitration Act is not a docket-management statute, but one that lay outs a textual preference for arbitration, not cleaning out district court dockets, he stays Bixby's remaining individual claims. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Claims, and Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's Individual Claims is granted. The Plaintiff's Class Claims are dismissed and their Individual Claims are stayed. The matter is stayed pending arbitration. The parties will arbitrate this dispute in accordance with their arbitration agreement and file a status report indicating the outcome of arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdd3kvb8 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Diaz v. HUD for Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LYDIA GONZALEZ DIAZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-2051 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants motions to dismiss. Defendants New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA"), United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), C+C Apartment Management L.L.C., and Harlem River Preservation L.L.C. ("HRP") filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b) (6). The action concerns the Harlem River Houses, a public housing authority ("PHA") development funded under Section 9 of the Housing Act of 1937 originally owned and managed by NYCHA. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, challenging HUD's approval of NYCHA's plan to convert Harlem River Houses into a privately owned and managed development corporation funded under Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. Section 5301 et seq. HRP was created in April 2020 to be the RAD/PACT developer for the Harlem River Houses conversion. In 2021, the Plaintiffs organized as United Front Against Displacement and lodged a series of complaints with HUD about what C+C Apartment Management, LLC and NYCHA were doing at Harlem River Houses. The two emails attached as exhibits to the AC complained of "intimidation" and "harassment" by C+C trying to pressure the Plaintiffs into signing the new private leases. The AC alleges that the C+C lease does not contain all of the protections of the NYCHA lease and the tenants have none of the statutory protections set forth in Section 9 of the Housing Act of 1937. On Aug. 2, 2021, Tai Merey Alex of the HUD Office of Recapitalization responded to the Plaintiffs' June 22, 2021 email. Among other things, Alex informed the Plaintiffs that HUD would investigate the claims set out in their email and attached letter and, at the conclusion of the investigation, HUD would issue a findings letter that would include whether HUD determined there to be program violations. Alex further assured the Plaintiffs that if HUD found non-compliance with RAD program requirements or HUD regulations, HUD would take appropriate actions in response. On Sept. 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs' Counsel responded to Alex's Aug. 2, 2021 email, asking that he be kept up to date on HUD's investigation. In October 2021, HRP announced that it would begin repairs on apartments, that in "many cases" the repairs would require tenants to move out, and HRP did not provide any assurances about whether tenants would return to their apartments or how long tenants would be "forced out" of their apartments. The Plaintiffs' counsel then emailed Alex complaining of the relocations, alleging that C+C was the real entity in control of the RAD conversion and asserting that NYCHA was ineligible to supervise a RAD conversion due to its status as a troubled PHA. Alex responded on Nov. 15, 2021, informing the Plaintiffs' counsel that HUD was conducting a fact-finding to investigate specific items raised to HUD by residents, that the submitted financial plan was under review, and that C+C's proposed relocation was under review. Regarding the Plaintiffs' counsel's statements on NYCHA's status as a troubled PHA, Alex referred the Plaintiffs' counsel to the RAD Notice. Around Feb. 18, 2022, C+C sent notice to all Harlem River Houses tenants that it was the new managing agent of Harlem River Houses. The Plaintiffs allege that HUD did not give them any notice of the RAD conversion approval, that they were not interviewed by HUD regarding their complaints, and that neither they nor their counsel were given copies of NYCHA's applications, financing plans, or the fact-finding results. Further, the Plaintiffs take issue with a process called "rightsizing," which they allege C+C will undertake after it begins managing the Harlem River Houses. They allege that tenants whose apartments are selected for repair and renovation have a right to return to the same property but not necessarily the same unit. Rightsizing is likely to result in evictions of people who according to NYCHA's records, are not in the household composition. The Plaintiffs assert that they have a right to be tenants in a converted development run by a qualified non-profit, supervised by a public housing agency which has the ability and desire to supervise the new RAD landlord, approved by HUD in a transparent process. They write that the fact that none of these rights has been met has caused them "irreparable injury." Both of the Plaintiffs' causes of action assert that HUD's approval of the Harlem River Houses conversion was arbitrary, capricious and in violation of applicable law. They base their first cause of action on what they assert is NYCHA's status as a Troubled PHA, NYCHA's failure to make substantial progress under a Consent Agreement, and NYCHA's failure to do a required detailed physical inspection. They ased their second cause of action on their assertion that C+C, a private, for-profit entity, will be the "long-term RAD/PACT landlord" and that the Harlem River Houses conversion will leave little or no genuine interest in Harlem River Houses with NYCHA or HRP. Seeking relief, the Plaintiffs pray the Court will enter a preliminary and permanent injunction reversing HUD's approval of the RAD conversion of Harlem River Houses, declare NYCHA ineligible to participate in the RAD conversion process, and declare HRP ineligible to own a RAD property. On May 27, 2022, HUD moved to dismiss the AC, asserting that the Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing under Article III to challenge HUD's approval of the RAD Conversion of Harlem River Houses. It argues that the Plaintiffs failed to establish legally cognizable injury in fact and that the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding HUD's approval of the RAD Conversion are not likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Because the motion can be resolved on redressability grounds, Judge Preska does not reach the question of whether the Plaintiffs have properly alleged an injury in fact. Judge Preska agrees with HUD's analysis. The Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the elements of constitutional standing and the Court need not credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context. The Plaintiffs did not meet their burden because they failed to establish that the injuries they alleged were likely to be redressed by a favorable decision from the Court. The Plaintiffs are also incorrect when they argue that a ruling for HUD would mean it is impossible to challenge a RAD conversion that does not include a waiting period between HUD's approval and the closing of the conversion, Judge Preska opines. She says the Plaintiffs were aware of NYCHA's prospective application for a RAD conversion as early as June 2021, roughly eight months before the conversion closed on Feb. 17, 2022. Even though agency action must be final before it can be challenged under the APA and HUD's action became final the same day the conversion closed before HUD approved the conversion, the Plaintiffs could have brought suit and moved for a preliminary injunction or a stay under Section 705 of the APA until their claims against the RAD conversion were adjudicated on the merits. Their failure to bring their case at the appropriate time does not give them standing to sue now when the conversion has closed and the Court can no longer redress any alleged injuries they may have. For these reasons, Judge Preska grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close case number 22-CV-2051 and any open motions. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/duak5krv from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: CPW Votes to Join PFAS Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- postandcourier.com reports that the Summerville Commissioners of Public Works (CPW) voted on Feb. 28 to join forces with Charleston and more than a dozen other South Carolina cities in a class action lawsuit aimed at holding corporate America accountable for part of the mitigation process that plastics and other contaminants are requiring. All of the companies named as defendants are included in the suit for their alleged contributions to per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which live in household cleaners, frozen food packaging, cosmetics, dental floss, fire-fighting foams, popcorn bags and non-stick cookware, etc. and make their way into drinking water and wastewater. In a public statement issued this week by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), 80 percent of exposure to PFAS, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) comes from consumer products. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the other 20 percent comes from drinking water and that individuals drink 2.5 liters of impacted water daily. The federal agency is issuing a proposed "maximum contaminant level" (MCL) limit for PFOS and PFOA on March 3. The pending, multi-district federal lawsuit in which the CPW voted to participate names 22 corporations and one "John Doe Defendant 1-20," with five of the 22 identified "individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise." Some of the other corporations include Amerex, Chemguard, National Ford Chemical Company, Tyco Fire Products, LP and The 3M Company, which makes everything from household and office supplies (think Scotchguard and Scotch tape), dental products and insulation to packaging labels, medical equipment, electronics components and building materials. "We are looking to mitigate the expense involved in PFAS testing and sampling (by joining the suit) . . . We're waiting for approval from elected officials before proceeding with it," CPW General Manager Chris Kahler said regarding the vote that took place after the board's executive session. Public water systems not only have to test and sample waste and/or drinking water but meet new MCL requirements for safety within three years. "We have no industrial customers in Summerville… but domestic systems have a higher chance of increased PFAS because of the higher levels of consumer products," said Kahler. "But until the EPA issues the level we're supposed to look for, we don't know what we're testing for." According to DHEC's public statement, there are more than 9,000 PFAS, 40 of which can be analyzed. Risk-based screening levels exist for six of those and there are unenforceable health advisories for four. Proposed MCLs, which are based on lifetime exposure estimates, will only address two. A November 2022 article on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) web site lists the PFAS-related health risks: negative impacts to the immune system, increased cholesterol levels, decreased vaccine response in children, higher blood pressure and risk of pre-eclampsia in pregnant women, liver enzyme changes and a higher risk of testicular and kidney cancers. Point-of-use filters certified to remove PFAS compounds can be installed on home faucets to reduce risk of exposure to PFAS, PFOAs and PFOS, and consumers are encouraged to buy PFAS-free products. For the most current information regarding PFAS regulations, visit DHEC's web site: https://scdhec.gov/PFAS.[GN] URBAN CITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Castillo Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN CITY DESIGNS, INC.; and ANDREW DOMINGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01216 (D.N.J., March 2, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Castillo was employed by the Defendants as construction laborer. URBAN CITY DESIGNS, INC. produce handcrafted stonework and mosaics for commercial and residential projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 VEE PAK: Court Grants Bid for Class Certification in Eagle Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOE EAGLE, MICHAEL KEYS, JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, and EVAN FRANKLIN on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. VEE PAK, INC., VEE PAK, LLC d/b/a VOYANT BEAUTY, and STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-09672 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: a. denies the Defendants' motions to strike Dr. Mark Bendick's declaration and testimony; and b. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs, who are African American, allege that Vee Pak, a beauty supply distributor, had a policy that favored hiring Latino workers over African Americans and instructed several staffing agencies to implement that policy when filling temporary positions in its warehouse. They have brought the putative class action, individually and on behalf of other African Americans similarly denied work, against Vee Pak and three staffing agencies that allegedly implemented Vee Pak's discriminatory policy. Two of the staffing agencies have settled the claims against them; Vee Pak and the third staffing agency, Staffing Network, remain in the case. The Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class of African American workers who sought, but were denied, work assignments at the three staffing agencies from which they could have been referred to Vee Pak between 2011 and 2015. Vee Pak and Staffing Network oppose certification and have also moved to bar the testimony of Dr. Bendick, a labor economist on whose proffered opinions the Plaintiffs rely in their class-certification motion. Vee Pak, a company located in Countryside and Hodgkins, Illinois, operates manufacturing facilities in which workers fill and cap bottles and tubes for personal-care and drug companies. Due to cyclical demand for its clients' products, Vee Pak hired temporary workers through staffing agencies Staffing Network Holdings LLC, Personnel Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a Most Valuable Personnel ("MVP"), and Alternative Staffing, Inc. d/b/a ASI, to fulfill client orders during the class period. During the class period, Vee Pak laborers worked in two shifts, one running from 5:30 a.m. to 3:30 or 4:30 p.m. and one running from 3:30 or 4:30 p.m. to midnight or 2:00 a.m. Nearly all of Vee Pak's temporary workers were assigned to Vee Pak's Countryside manufacturing facility in the far western side of the Chicago metropolitan area. During some portion of the class period, some staffing agencies would transport workers to client companies, including to Vee Pak, by van, either directly from the workers' homes or from the staffing agencies. Some workers had to travel directly to the client using their own vehicles or via public transportation. The parties dispute the extent and availability of van transportation at each agency. Multiple staffing-agency employees testified that they were given explicit instructions not to assign African American workers to Vee Pak. Some workers who did receive assignments initially, moreover, were turned away at Vee Pak's door. When workers could not comply with the demands of Vee Pak's manufacturing job or did not follow the instructions included with Vee Pak's training materials, they were designated "Do Not Return," or "DNR." Some testifying staffing-agency employees observed that workers whom Vee Pak designated DNR were disproportionately African American. Other staffing-agency employees testified that Vee Pak turned away African American laborers that the staffing agency brought to Vee Pak. The Plaintiffs originally sued Vee Pak, ASI, MVP, and Staffing Network in 2012, alleging that the Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 by engaging in racially discriminatory hiring practices. Since then, some of the named Plaintiffs have changed, and the Plaintiffs are no longer pursuing a claim based on the Defendants' violation of Title VII. Beyond that, the Plaintiffs' allegations remain largely the same as they were at the start of the lawsuit. In 2014, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to strike class allegations and to dismiss the complaint, holding that the proposed classes facially met the requirements of Rule 23. Lucas v. Vee Pak, Inc., 68 F.Supp.3d 870, 880 (N.D. Ill. 2014). It approved a settlement between the Plaintiffs and ASI in 2018, holding that the proposed ASI settlement class also met Rule 23's requirements. The Court has also recently issued a preliminary settlement approval order between the Plaintiffs and Personnel Staffing Group, the company doing business as MVP. That order was issued in conjunction with Judge Ellis' recent preliminary approval between Personnel Staffing Group and plaintiffs in Zollicoffer v. Gold Standard Baking, No. 13-cv-01524. In that case, a class represented by Zollicoffer alleged that MVP and another client company engaged in similar discriminatory hiring practices. Judge Ellis certified that class in 2020. Zollicoffer v. Gold Standard Baking, Inc., 335 F.R.D. 126, 133 (N.D. Ill. 2020). A final approval hearing in this case is scheduled on April 7, 2023. The Plaintiffs move to certify three subclasses pursuant to the below definitions, with the following named Plaintiff representatives: Staffing Network subclass (represented by Joe Eagle and Michael Keys): African American laborers who sought work assignments at Staffing Network from which they could have been referred to Vee Pak, but on one or more occasions were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011, up through and including Dec. 31, 2015. MVP subclass (represented by James Zollicoffer): African American laborers who sought work assignments at MVP from which they could have been referred to Vee Pak, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of Jan. 1, 2011, up through and including Oct. 21, 2013. ASI Subclass (represented by Evan Franklin): African American laborers who sought work assignments at ASI from which they could have been referred to Vee Pak, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of Jan. 1, 2011, up through and including Dec. 31, 2015. Initially, Judge Tharp examines the Defendants' move to strike Dr. Bendick's declarations and testimony. Dr. Bendick's report purports to establish a statistical shortfall between the expected and actual representation of African Americans in referrals to Vee Pak. Because Bendick's analysis included workers who did not embark upon the commute to Vee Pak, the Defendants argue that Bendick wholly failed to consider workers' actual commuting distance, rendering his methodology unreliable. Their remaining criticisms of Dr. Bendick's analysis focus on the quality of the data that Bendick used and other variables that Bendick omitted. Judge Tharp holds that such information is undoubtedly relevant to the question of whether the Defendants enforced a discriminatory policy; the policy's expected effect is probative of its existence. He therefore concludes -- and the parties agree -- that he should resolve the Defendants' motions to strike Dr. Bendick's expert report before addressing class certification. Without a firm basis for concluding that Bendick must account for certain factors that pertain to a worker's commute to render his methodology reliable, Judge Tharp opines that the Defendants' attacks on his methodology ring hollow. Bendick also considered African Americans' potential interest in the job, drew his relevant labor market based upon real data, and applied a regression methodology that courts have repeatedly endorsed. Although his results are not bulletproof, Judge Tharp finds that any deficiencies can be addressed on cross examination. Hence, the Defendants' motion to strike Bendick's testimony is denied. Judge Tharp turns to Motion for Class Certification. To certify a class, he must first consider whether it meets the requirements of Rule 23(a): numerousity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. If the proposed class meets Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites, he must examine whether one of Rule 23(b)'s provisions is satisfied: Whether questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Rule 23(c)(5) further provides that, when appropriate, a class may be divided into subclasses that are each treated as a class under Rule 23. The Plaintiffs accordingly seek certification of each proposed subclass under Rules 23(b)(3) and (c)(5). Judge Tharp opines that (i) the Defendants do not dispute that the proposed subclasses satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement; (ii) the Plaintiffs' proposed class would allow for class-wide resolution of liability issues; (iii) the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members all suffered a typical injury; (iv) the named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives; (v) the common issues in the case predominate over individualized inquiries; and (vi) it would be extremely inefficient for the Court to determine, in separate individualized proceedings, whether the Defendants engaged in a discriminatory policy that applied to all class members. Moreover, Judge Tharp opines that (i) the class definitions would ascertain the group of people that the Defendants' policies harmed while addressing the concerns about branch locations that the Plaintiffs raised; and (ii) during the time that staffing agencies refused to send workers to Vee Pak pursuant to Vee Pak's policy, both the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members were treated alike. Ultimately, Judge Tharp finds unpersuasive the Defendants' attacks on class certification. A jury's finding that a discriminatory policy, rather than Vee Pak's insistence on experienced workers, motivated the Defendants' hiring and referral decisions, would eliminate the need for repeat adjudication of this question for determinations of damages or individual injunctive relief. Judge Tharp finds that the class definitions, as amended by the Court, meet Rule 23's certification requirements. The amended subclasses are certified. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Tharp denies the Defendants' motions to strike Dr. Bendick's declaration and testimony, and grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He appoints Plaintiffs Joe Eagle and Michael Keys as the Staffing Network subclass representatives, Plaintiff James Zollicoffer as the MVP subclass representative, and Plaintiff Evan Franklin as the ASI subclass representative and appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel, Joseph M. Sellers, Harini Srinivasan, Christopher J. Williams, Christopher J. Wilmes, and Caryn C. Lederer as the class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/353bhhfa from Leagle.com. VEON LTD: Court Maintains Lead Plaintiff Order in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re VEON LTD. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-CV-8672 (ALC) (OTW) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies SKS' motion to reconsider her order appointing Boris Lvov the Lead Plaintiff. On April 29, 2022, Judge Wang issued an Opinion & Order appointing Boris Lvov the Lead Plaintiff. Three proposed lead plaintiffs, collectively referred to as "SKS," filed a motion for reconsideration on May 13, 2022, under Local Rule 6.3. Specifically, SKS and their counsel argue that the Second Circuit's dicta in Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 991 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 211 L. Ed. 2d 475, 142 S.Ct. 757 (2022), compels a different result, and that Judge Wang committed a "clear error of law" by appointing Lvov as the Lead Plaintiff over SKS. In the earlier briefing, SKS argued extensively that they should be lead plaintiffs because their individual and class claims would be equitably tolled under Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 201 L. Ed. 2d 123, 138 S.Ct. 1800 (2018). In that briefing, which took place in April to May of 2021, they did not raise Fund Liquidation Holdings once despite it having been decided just one month before. Judge Wang holds that SKS points to no new or intervening governing authority, nor have they demonstrated that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion, which, had they been considered, might reasonably have altered the result reached by the Court. Moreover, the Second Circuit's instruction on American Pipe and the availability of equitable tolling was dicta, meant to address an alternative holding by the District Court in that case. In sum, Judge Wang agrees with Judge Kaplan and the Second Circuit: while American Pipe and China Agritech do not prohibit equitable tolling to allow a new lead plaintiff or class representative to join an existing putative class action, neither do they compel a court to apply equitable tolling in all instances, without regard to the proposed plaintiff's diligence and the goals of economy and efficiency. For these reasons, she denies reconsideration. Accordingly, with SKS's motion to reconsider denied, Lvov is granted leave to file his Amended Complaint by March 20, 2023. ECF 201 is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 190, 192, and 201. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwwk7668 from Leagle.com. VERIFF INC: BIPA Suit Settlement Claims Filing Due on April 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by April 21, 2023. Veriff agreed to pay $4 million to end claims the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by allegedly collecting facial geometry scans without first obtaining consent. The class action settlement benefits individuals who had their biometric identifiers collected, captured, purchased or otherwise obtained by Veriff as a way for identity verification in Illinois from between Nov. 12, 2016, and Dec. 5, 2022. [GN] VINA BEVERAGES: Donet Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARICELA DONET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VINA BEVERAGES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 151920/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., February 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, drinkvina.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a) the website is not properly coded to read each link; (b) in the website, a pop-up appears which is not properly coded to allow the screen reader to close it using the cursor keys; (c) the website does not contain proper navigation links or headings; and (d) the website does not provide a text equivalent for many non-text elements. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Vina Beverages, Inc. is an online retail company doing business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com WE EAT HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gombash Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GOMBASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WE EAT HOSPITALITY GROUP, LTD.; STATE & 9 CORPORATION, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; AURORA BULL DOG COMPANY, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; 459 RANDALL CROSSINGS COMPANY, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; 6610 SHERIDAN CORPORATION, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; ROOSEVELT 100 CORPORATION, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; 2628 RT 59 COMPANY, d/b/a BURNT PIZZA COMPANY; 451 COMMONS COMPANY, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; 1480 GOLF CORPORATION, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; YORKTOWN TOASTMASTER CORPORATION, d/b/a HONEY BERRY CAFÉ; ROSELLE LLA, INC., d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; BULL DOG ALE HOUSE, INC., d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; MCHENRY 31 COMPANY, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; ALGONQUIN COMMONS COMPANY, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; 157 WEBER COMPANY, d/b/a BULLDOG ALE HOUSE; and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01268 (N.D. Il., Mar. 1, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Gombash was employed by the Defendants as bartender. WE EAT HOSPITALITY GROUP, LTD. provides business management and assistance through consultation and training in the areas of service, hospitality, culinary creations and development, finance and accounting, and human resources. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan G. Zelizer, Esq. HR LAW COUNSEL 29 S. Webster St., Suite 350-C Naperville, IL 60540 Telephone: (630)551-8374 Email: ethan@hrlawcounsel.com WEEK PUBLICATIONS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $5-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ topclassactions.com reports that The Week Publications agreed to pay over $5 million to resolve claims it violated Michigan privacy laws by sharing subscription holders' information with third parties. The settlement benefits individuals who purchased a subscription from the publisher of The Week for delivery to a Michigan street address and who subscribed to the publication between Dec. 17, 2015, and July 31, 2016. According to the class action lawsuit, The Week violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act by sharing subscriber information with third parties before July 30, 2016. The Week allegedly failed to get consent before sharing this information. The Week is an online and paper magazine publication that covers a range of topics, including politics and pop culture. The Week Publications hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $5.08 million class action settlement to resolve the privacy allegations against it. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive around $248. However, exact payment amounts may be higher or lower depending on the number of participating class members and the net settlement fund after cost and fee deductions. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 24, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June 28, 2023. Class members who received a notice do not need to file a claim form but may submit an election form by June 6, 2023, to receive their payment via Venmo or PayPal. Consumers who did not receive a notice must submit a claim form by June 6, 2023, in order to receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Individuals who purchased a subscription from the publisher of The Week for delivery to a Michigan street address and who subscribed to the publication between Dec. 17, 2015, and July 31, 2016 Potential Award $248 (estimated) Proof of Purchase N/A 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 06/06/2023 Case Name Moeller, et al. v. The Week Publications Inc., Case No. 22-cv-10666-TLL-PTM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Final Hearing 06/28/2023 Settlement Website TheWeekSettlement.com Claims Administrator The Week Settlement c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91225 Seattle, WA 98111 info@TheWeekSettlement.com 877-415-0652 [GN] WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Settlement Claims Filing Due Set April 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of TopClass Actions reports that individuals who would like to make a claim to join the class action settlement must submit a valid claim form by April 24, 2023. Woodbolt agreed to pay $3 million to end claims the company falsely advertised its XTEND brand workout powder product is "0 calories. " The class action settlement benefits a class of consumers who purchased certain XTEND workout powder products either through Woodbolt or through a third-party seller, including Amazon, from between July 28, 2014, and January 24, 2023. [GN] YALE UNIVERSITY: Michel Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN MICHEL is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yale University, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01080, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to deliver the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities for which the Plaintiff and Class members contracted and paid for the Spring 2020 academic semester and refused to refund tuition and related expenses, purportedly on its provision of online classes. The Plaintiff and Class members entered into a contract with the Defendant whereby payment of tuition, fees and other related costs would be made, and the Defendant would provide in-person instruction and access to physical resources and school facilities such as libraries, laboratories, and classrooms. However, the Defendant closed its campus and moved all or substantially all classes online in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While this step to close campus and end in-person classes was necessitated by circumstances, it effectively breached or terminated the contract Yale had with each and every student and tuition provider, who paid for the opportunity to participate fully in the academic life on the Yale campus. As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff and Class members did not receive the full value of the services for which they paid. They have lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss. On Sept. 1, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Janet C. Hall on Jan. 30, 2023. The Court also granted Michel's Motion to Seal portions of his Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment as well as certain exhibits. The remaining outstanding motions including the Motion to Exclude the Reports and Opinions of Dr. Gareth Macartney and the Motion to Certify the Class were dismissed as moot. The appellate case is captioned Michel v. Yale University, Case No. 23-222, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 23, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JONATHAN MICHEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C. 1600 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Defendant-Appellee YALE UNIVERSITY is represented by: Jonathan Freiman, Esq. WIGGIN AND DANA LLP One Century Tower 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 498-4584 [*] 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. [*] Auto Part Company Reaches Settlement in FCRA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- pre-employ.com reports that the settlement will benefit both current and former employees of the auto parts company. It will affect those who signed job application disclosure, authorization, and digital signature forms. In addition, it includes anyone that the company obtained a consumer report between January 31, 2015, and February 17, 2021. The plaintiffs claimed the defendant violated their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the claim, this violation happened while obtaining consent to conduct a background check during the application process. In addition, they alleged that the auto parts company included extraneous information on disclosure forms, violating the FCRA. The FCRA requires employers to "provide the prospective employee with a clear and conspicuous written disclosure that you plan to get a background screening report about them." Employers must also obtain the person's written authorization to conduct the background check. However, employers may combine the disclosure with the request for permission on one document. In addition, it must have clear language that potential employees will be able to understand. Some companies end up having problems due to adding complicated legal wording, waivers, or acknowledgments. The auto parts company has not admitted wrongdoing despite agreeing to the settlement. The terms state that class members can get an equal share. After paying the attorney's fees and other costs, the net settlement should become approximately $495,000. Therefore, each class member can receive $2.92 based on the projected class size and the expected net settlement fund. However, the exact payments could be higher or lower than this estimate. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 5, 2023; final approval for the hearing is the day after, March 6, 2023. Class members who choose not to exclude themselves from the settlement can expect an automatic payment. In addition, they do not need a class form to benefit from the suit. This case shows the importance of following regulations when conducting background checks. Businesses can ensure compliance by partnering with a trustworthy background check company. The right partner will provide accurate and FCRA-compliant reports. [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. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 170 Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state courts. There were 170 asbestos cases pending as of December 31, 2022. Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount related to pending claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3mDk4fq ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Still Receives Asbestos & Environment Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc., continues receive claims asserting injuries and damages from toxic waste, hazardous substances, and other environmental pollutants and alleged claims to cover the cleanup costs of hazardous waste dump sites, referred to collectively as environmental claims, and indemnity claims asserting injuries from asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of these asbestos and environmental losses emanate from policies written in 1984 and prior years. Commencing in 1985, standard policies contained absolute exclusions for pollution-related damage and asbestos. The current environmental policies that we specifically price and underwrite for environmental risks on a claims-made basis have been excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, most of these legacy exposures have been heavily reinsured with very highly rated reinsurers. "The majority of our remaining exposures for asbestos and environmental losses are related to excess casualty coverages, not primary coverages. The litigation costs are treated in the same manner as indemnity amounts, with litigation expenses included within the limits of the liability we incur. Individual significant loss reserves, where future litigation costs are reasonably determinable, are established on a case-by-case basis." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/41VlaUk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold predominantly by the its discontinued Motion Control business between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Carlisle Companies states, "The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and defense costs associated with these lawsuits. "The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of December 31, 2022, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or operating cash flows. "The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred. Refer to Note 1 for the Company's accounting policy related to litigation defense costs. "The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company records the insurance coverage as a receivable in an amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's insurance coverage contains various exclusions, limits of coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance coverage disputes, the Company may recognize expenses for indemnity and defense costs in particular periods if and when it becomes probable that such costs will not be covered by insurance. "Henry has also been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing roofing products produced and sold by Henry and certain of its subsidiaries. Henry is subject to liabilities for indemnity and defense costs associated with these lawsuits. As of December 31, 2022, the Company believes such liabilities are not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or operating cash flows. Henry currently maintains insurance coverage and is the beneficiary of other arrangements which provide coverage with respect to certain asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. Such insurance coverage contains various exclusions, limits of coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance coverage disputes." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3kZ2qT5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Inc. Faces Asbestos Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caterpillar Inc. is involved in various claims and lawsuits related to product design, manufacture and performance liability (including claimed asbestos exposure), contracts, employment issues, environmental matters, intellectual property rights, tax, securities and other legal proceedings that arise in and outside of the ordinary course of its business, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The industries in which we operate are also periodically reviewed or investigated by regulators, which could lead to enforcement actions, fines and penalties or the assertion of private litigation claims. It is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of claims, investigations and lawsuits, and we could in the future incur judgments, fines or penalties or enter into settlements of lawsuits and claims that could have an adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations or financial condition in any particular period. "The global and diverse nature of our operations means that legal and compliance risks will continue to exist and additional legal proceedings and other contingencies, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with certainty, may arise from time to time. In addition, subsequent developments in legal proceedings may affect our assessment and estimates of loss contingencies recorded as a reserve and require us to make payments in excess of our reserves. Such payments could have an adverse effect on our reputation, business and results of operations or financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ZNWY4o ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the future, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ykRPF7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.'s certain of its acquired subsidiaries have been named as defendants, among many other named defendants, in numerous lawsuits filed since 1990 claiming injury allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Similar lawsuits seeking monetary relief continue to be filed in various jurisdictions in the U.S., which cases are vigorously defended. Although predictions about the outcome of pending litigation is subject to uncertainties, based upon present knowledge, we believe it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of these claims will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ZtO5wT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 227 Pending Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Colgate-Palmolive states, "As of December 31, 2022, there were 227 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 171 cases as of December 31, 2021. During the three months ended December 31, 2022, the Company lost an appeal in one case that, in the second quarter of 2019, had resulted in an adverse jury verdict after a trial. The Company has filed a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking to further appeal the decision. During the year ended December 31, 2022, 89 new cases were filed and 33 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the settlements and the accrual with respect to the case that resulted in an adverse jury verdict in the years presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each such period's results of operations. "A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy limits and insurance carrier insolvencies. "While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3yluYcE ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Faces Numerous Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Suits have been brought in NY State and federal courts against Consolidated Edison, Inc., and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. At December 31, 2022, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years as shown in the following table. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/405SxSH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Lists $95MM Est. Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ Constellation Energy Corporation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions at certain facilities that are currently owned by them or were previously owned by ComEd, PECO, or BGE, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At December 31, 2022 and 2021, we recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $95 million and $81 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of December 31, 2022, approximately $23 million of this amount related to 253 open claims presented to us, while the remaining $72 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3kWNLaU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Faces Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Chemical Company and its operations, from time to time, are parties to or targets of lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters, which are handled and defended in the ordinary course of business, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Eastman Chemical, "The Company accrues a contingent loss liability for such matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When a single amount cannot be reasonably estimated but the cost can be estimated within a range, the Company accrues the minimum amount. The Company expenses legal costs, including those expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency, as incurred." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ZPpHWe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Still Faces Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX)'s affiliates, since approximately 1990, have been named as defendants in a large number of lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or talc allegedly contained in industrial products such as electrical wire and cable, raw materials such as paint and joint compounds, talc-based lubricants used in rubber manufacturing or from asbestos contained in buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated by affiliates of FCX, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Many of these suits involve a large number of codefendants. Based on litigation results to date and facts currently known, FCX believes there is a reasonable possibility that losses may have been incurred related to these matters; however, FCX also believes that the amounts of any such losses, individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that future developments will not alter this conclusion. "There has been a significant increase in the number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in talc-based cosmetic and personal care products and in cases alleging exposure to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets. Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining and processing from 1964 until 1992 when it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two related transactions. Those transactions involved (1) a transfer by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (2) a sale of the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In 2011, the third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys), an affiliate of Imerys S.A. In accordance with the terms of the 1992 transactions and subsequent agreements, Imerys undertook the defense and indemnification of Cyprus Mines and CAMC in talc lawsuits. "Cyprus Mines has contractual indemnification rights, subject to limited reservations, against Imerys, which historically acknowledged those indemnification obligations and took responsibility for all cases tendered to it. However, in February 2019, Imerys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which triggered an immediate automatic stay under the federal bankruptcy code prohibiting any party from continuing or initiating litigation or asserting new claims against Imerys. As a result, Imerys stopped defending the talc lawsuits against Cyprus Mines and CAMC. In addition, Imerys took the position that it alone owns, and has the sole right to access, the proceeds of the legacy insurance coverage of Cyprus Mines and CAMC for talc liabilities. In March 2019, Cyprus Mines and CAMC challenged this position and obtained emergency relief from the bankruptcy court to gain access to the insurance until the question of ownership and contractual access could be decided in an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court, which is currently on hold. "In January 2021, Imerys filed the form of a settlement and release agreement to be entered into by CAMC, Cyprus Mines, FCX, Imerys and the other debtors, tort claimants' committee and future claims representative in the Imerys bankruptcy. In accordance with the global settlement, among other things, (1) CAMC will pay a total of $130 million in cash to a settlement trust in seven annual installments, which will be guaranteed by FCX, and (2) CAMC and Cyprus Mines and their affiliates will contribute to the settlement trust all rights that they have to the proceeds of certain legacy insurance policies as well as indemnity rights they have against Johnson & Johnson, and Imerys also obtained an injunction temporarily staying approximately 950 talc lawsuits against CAMC and Cyprus Mines, which has been extended through July 2023. The interim stay is a component of the global settlement but there can be no assurance that the bankruptcy court will continue to impose the interim stay. "As part of the global settlement, Cyprus Mines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2021. In connection with executing the settlement and release agreement, FCX concluded that it has a probable loss and, in 2020, recorded a $130 million charge to environmental obligations and shutdown costs. "Mediation to resolve open issues in the Imerys and Cyprus Mines bankruptcy cases, including the adequacy of the global settlement, is ongoing, and FCX expects it to continue at least through first-quarter 2023. FCX's global settlement is subject to, among other things, votes by claimants in both the Imerys and Cyprus Mines bankruptcy cases as well as bankruptcy court approvals in both cases, and there can be no assurance that the global settlement will be successfully implemented. FCX has a $130 million liability balance at December 31, 2022, associated with the proposed settlement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ykPlqs ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp.'s Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ GATX Corporation's subsidiaries have been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises liability. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters could ultimately be decided, resolved, or settled adversely." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3kTyl7k ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Huntington Ingalls states, "In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The costs to resolve cases during the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020 were not material individually or in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3yADeWp ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $105MM Asbestos Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company has recorded total liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims of $105 million and $103 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries, as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. International Paper states, "The Company utilizes its in-house legal counsel and environmental experts to develop estimates of its legal, environmental and asbestos obligations, supplemented as needed by third-party specialists to analyze its most complex contingent liabilities. "We have been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies previously acquired by the Company. As of December 31, 2022, the Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $105 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ZPQxOg ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Has $54.5MM Net A&E Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation, at December 31, 2022, has reported A&E reserves of $153.2 million and $54.5 million on a gross and net basis, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Markel Corp. states, "The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims primarily resulting from policies written by acquired insurance operations before their acquisition by the Company. The Company's exposure to A&E claims originated from umbrella, excess and commercial general liability insurance policies and assumed reinsurance contracts that were written on an occurrence basis from the 1970s to mid-1980s. Exposure also originated from claims-made policies that were designed to cover environmental risks provided that all other terms and conditions of the policy were met. A&E claims include property damage and clean-up costs related to pollution, as well as personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to hazardous materials. Development on A&E loss reserves is monitored separately from the Company's ongoing underwriting operations and is not included in a reportable segment. "The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of ultimate settlement values based on statistical analysis of these reserves by the Company's actuaries. A&E exposures are subject to significant uncertainty due to potential loss severity and frequency resulting from the uncertain and unfavorable legal climate. A&E reserves could be subject to increases in the future, however, management believes the Company's gross and net A&E reserves at December 31, 2022 are adequate." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3L4IzfK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Defends 440 Cases as of Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials related to talc products sold by its subsidiary Barretts Minerals Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2022, we had 440 open asbestos cases related to certain talc products previously sold by Barretts Minerals Inc., which is an increase in volume from previous years. These claims typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, but most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of these lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require the plaintiff to identify the amount of the claimed damage. The Company's position, as stated publicly, is that the talc products sold by Barretts Minerals Inc. are safe and do not cause cancer. "While costs relating to the defense of talc-related cases has increased concurrently with the volume, the majority of these costs have historically been borne by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for liabilities related to sales prior to the initial public offering. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs associated with the defense and/or settlement of talc-related cases not subject to indemnification from Pfizer. Although the Company believes that the talc products are safe and that claims to the contrary are without merit, Barretts Minerals Inc. opportunistically settled certain talc-related cases in the third quarter and fourth quarter of 2022. As a result of these settlements and defense costs incurred to date, the Company reviewed its estimates of the probability and amount of losses in connection with its talc-related cases and recorded $31 million for litigation costs in the third quarter of 2022 to defend against, opportunistically settle, and establish a reserve for claims associated with certain talc products from Barretts Minerals Inc." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3JjrUnB ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 547 PI Lawsuits as of Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- MRC Global Inc. is one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2022, we are a named defendant in approximately 547 lawsuits involving approximately 1,112 claims. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the various defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos-containing products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products that the Company's subsidiary, MRC Global (US) Inc., purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with the majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. "We annually conduct analyses of our asbestos-related litigation to estimate the adequacy of the reserve for pending and probable asbestos-related claims. Given these estimated reserves and existing insurance coverage that has been available to cover substantial portions of these claims, we believe that our current accruals and associated estimates relating to pending and probable asbestos-related litigation likely to be asserted over the next 15 years are currently adequate." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3kZUIrI ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Faces 4,054 Product Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- MSA Safety Incorporated's wholly owned subsidiary MSA LLC, as of December 31, 2022, was named as a defendant in 1,500 lawsuits comprised of 4,054 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by MSA LLC or its predecessors. The product models alleged were manufactured many years ago by MSA LLC and are no longer sold. At December 31, 2022, the Company's reserve for cumulative trauma product liability claims was $395.1 million, representing its best estimate of the expected losses related to these claims. Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve potential exposures to substances that are alleged to have occurred over a number of years. In recent periods, this has included the asbestos, silica, and coal dust claims of one of the Company's affiliates, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC ("MSA LLC")." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3YzfBI6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- NewMarket Corporation a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries. "We have provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $7 million at December 31, 2022 and $8 million at December 31, 2021. The liabilities related to premises asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are recoverable through the settlement agreements with The Travelers Indemnity Company and with Albemarle Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities was $4 million at both December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021. These receivables are included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and other assets." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3mwgTGu ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 21,580 Pending Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Global, as of December 31, 2022, had approximately 21,580 asbestos claims pending, as compared with approximately 27,770 as of December 31, 2021 and 30,710 as of December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "During 2022, we received approximately 2,840 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 9,030 claims. We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the years 2022 and 2021 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $57 million and $63 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. "Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3L79o34 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $51MM Reserves as of Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos-related reserves totaled $51 million and $54 million, as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. PPG Industries states, "The Company monitors and reviews the activity associated with its asbestos claims and evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. Additionally, as a supplement to its periodic monitoring and review, the Company conducts discussions with counsel and engages valuation consultants to analyze its claims history and estimate the amount of the Company's potential liability for asbestos-related claims. "In 2022, no adjustments to the Company's estimate of its asbestos-related liabilities were required. "In 2021, based on the results of the Company's valuation analysis, the Company reduced its estimate of potential liability for Products Claims by $146 million. The 2021 valuation analysis with respect to Products Claims was based, in part, upon a review of claims data following the expiration in May 2016 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company that had been in effect since April 2000; annual filings by disease and year; pending, paid and dismissed claims; indemnity cash flows; and estimates of future claim, indemnity and acceptance rates. The Company also adjusted its estimates of potential liability for Premises Claims and Subsidiary Claims in the fourth quarter of 2021. "As a result of the Company's 2021 review of its asbestos-related liabilities, income of $133 million was recorded in the consolidated statement of income to reduce the reserve to reflect the Company's current estimate of potential liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims through December 31, 2057. "As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, the Company's asbestos-related reserves totaled $51 million and $54 million, respectively. "The Company believes that, based on presently available information, the total reserves of $51 million for asbestos-related claims will be sufficient to encompass all of the Company's current and estimable potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, involve significant management judgment and represent the Company's current best estimate of its liability for these claims. "The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed, dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (viii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. While the ultimate outcome of the Company's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ZsDLVP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.31BB Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc. has reported net asbestos reserves of $1.31 billion and $1.34 billion, at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and include case reserves, IBNR reserves and reserves for the costs of defending asbestos-related coverage litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "IBNR reserves include amounts for new claims and adverse development on existing policyholders, as well as reserves for claims from policyholders reporting asbestos claims for the first time and for policyholders for which there is, or may be, litigation. Asbestos reserves also include amounts related to certain policyholders with whom the Company has entered into permanent settlement agreements, which are based on the expected payout for each policyholder under the applicable agreement. Additionally, a portion of the asbestos reserves relates to assumed reinsurance contracts primarily consisting of reinsurance of excess coverage, including various pool participations. "The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims. Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on defendants, such as manufacturers of talcum powder, who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. "The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in bankruptcy, over coverage for asbestos-related claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. "In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be filed in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3YtRISc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Still Faces Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Vontier Corporation, from time to time, is subject to a variety of litigation and other proceedings incidental to its business, including lawsuits involving claims for damages arising out of the use of its products, software and services; claims relating to intellectual property matters, employment matters, commercial disputes, product liability (including asbestos exposure claims) and personal injury; as well as regulatory investigations or enforcement, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Some of our existing or legacy businesses have in the past been, and in the future may be, the subject of suits brought by plaintiffs asserting that they have contracted or may contract either mesothelioma or another asbestos-related condition in connection with exposure to or use of products previously made or sold by such businesses. Many asbestos-related conditions, such as mesothelioma, have long latency periods in which the disease process develops, making it difficult to accurately predict the types and numbers of such claims in the future. While insurance coverage exists for many of these asbestos litigations, others may have no such coverage. If our insurance coverage is not applicable or is not adequate, we may be responsible for all defense expenditures, as well as any settlements or verdict payouts. Any future asbestos-related litigation, brought against us or our subsidiaries, whether with or without merit, could result in substantial liabilities and costs to us as well as divert the attention of our management, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ZNRhDj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Estimates $79MM Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation and numerous other unrelated companies, as of December 31, 2022, were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2022, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be approximately $79.0 million, of which Zurn Elkay expects approximately $58.0 million to be paid in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $79.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in reserve for asbestos claims within the consolidated balance sheets. "Management estimates that the available insurance to cover this ten year estimated potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2022 is $72.1 million. The Company recorded a receivable from its insurance carriers, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in insurance for asbestos claims within the consolidated balance sheets. During the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company recorded $6.9 million for the amount that the estimated potential liability exceeds a gap in the Company's estimated available insurance coverage. This expense is recorded in other income (expense), net within the consolidated statements of operations. During the year ended December 31, 2021 and the nine-month Transition Period ended December 31, 2020, no amounts were recorded in the consolidated statements of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3STIsFM ********* 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 ***