/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231116.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 16, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 230
Headlines
ADVOCATE AURORA: Data Breach Claimants May Claim until Mid-Jan 2024
AEGEAN MARINE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit
AEGEAN MARINE: Gianniotis Dismissed From Securities Litigation
AEGEAN MARINE: Lead Plaintiff's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees
AEGEAN MARINE: Melissanidis Dismissed From Securities Litigation
ALASKA AIRLINES: Faces Passengers' Class Suit Over Diverted Flight
ALDI INC: Cordaro Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Cocktails
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Raynaldo Suit
AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahmed Alleges
APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
APA CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit
AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Ortmann Class Suit
BAR LUNATICO: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Torres Securities Class Suit
BEST BAGEL & COFFEE: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEST BUY LIQUORS: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BETTER THAN PANTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE: Greeley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BOOT BARN: Discloses Payment of Settlement in Labor-Related Suit
CAMPING WORLD: Hearing on Cybersecurity-Related Suit Set for Dec. 5
CAVA GROUP: Faces Hamman PFAS-Related Suit in California
CEP AMERICA: Faces $20 Million 401(k) Excessive Fees Class Suit
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Slaten Complaint
CLARK COUNTY, NV: Faces Parents' Class Suit Over Cyberattack
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit in NY
CORDOBA MINERAL: Faces Suit Over Alacran Mining Operations
DCG NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Contract Price, All State Says
DEL MONTE FOODS: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Bryan Complaint
DERMTECH INC: Continues to Defend Bagheri Class Suit in California
DIGITALOCEAN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Agarwal Securities Suit
DMS HEALTH: Boyd Files Suit in D. North Dakota
DOCUSIGN INC: Must Oppose Weston Class Cert Bid by Jan. 19, 2024
DXC TECHNOLOGY: CSC Class Suit Trial Set for September 2025
ELI LILLY & CO: Painters Third Party Payor Class Suit Ongoing
ENGAGESMART INC: Continues to Defend Franchi Class Suit
ENSERVCO CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
FCA US: Wins Summary Judgment vs Zuehlsdorf
FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones Class Suit
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: E.D. Washington Dismisses Laughlin Labor Suit
FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Shumacher Class Suit Due Dec. 15
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Berkelhammer Class Suit
GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Narrows Claims in McMillian Consumer Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
GEORGIA POWER CO: Continues to Defend Turnage Class Suit
GEORGIA POWER: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit
GIGCAPITALACQUISITIONS LLC: Delman Sues Over Lightning Merger
GLEN MILLS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid Under Seal
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement in Hodges Gets Initial Nod
GRAND CANYON: Continues to Defend HRS Class Suit in Delaware
HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Flora Class Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Lynn Suit
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Fasteners
HARRIS TEETER: Faces Class Suit Over Oral Nasal Decongestants
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
INTRUSION INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Action
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
JEFF SANDY: Rose Seeks Leave to Supplement Class Cert Record
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024
JSW STEEL: Seeks to Modify FLSA Collective in Polen Lawsuit
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit
LASERSHIP INC: West Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification
LEAGUE OF NATIONS: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Tossed
LEGACY HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to May 15, 2024
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit
LYFT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $38M Over Wage Theft
MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Video Hearing on Notice Set for Dec. 5
MCKESSON CORP: Appellate Court Ok'd TCPA Class Decertification Suit
MCLAREN HEALTH: E.D. Michigan Prohibits Filings in Norwood Suit
MDL 2818: Class Cert Bid in Air Conditioning Suit in Abeyance
MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Robinson Suit Gets Initial Nod
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
MITEK SYSTEMS: BIPA Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cochran Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Continued by 45 Days
NEVADA: Williams Must File Signed 1st Amended Complaint by Dec. 26
NEW BRUNSWICK, CA: Court OKs $17M Deal in Sexual Assault Suit
NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Suit Over New-Born Screening Program
NORTHERN GENESIS: Schachter Sues Over Drop in Share Price
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Nelnet's Bid to Dismiss Carr Suit Partly Granted
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Amended Carr Suit
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Court Consolidates Soto & Jones Securities Suits
PARKER-HANNIFIN: Court OKs Settlement of Data Breach Suit
PBF ENERGY INC: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in Calif.
PEACEHEALTH: $7.35MM Class Settlement in Davies Suit Has Final OK
PENNSYLVANIA: Bid for Summary Judgment in Alford v. Baylor Granted
PENUMBRA INC: Continues to Defend Labor Code-Related Suit
POLISHED.COM INC: Faces Maschhof Shareholder Suit Over IPO
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Dlamini Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
QUALCOMM INC: Class Status Bid in Shah Partly OK'd
QUALVOICE LLC: Settlement in Frederick Suit Has Final Approval
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson's Bid to Strike Five Defenses Denied
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Signs Pension Class Deal for $900,000
RUMBLE INC: Faces Video Privacy Suit in Florida Court
SCIVAC LTD: Vaccine Product Litigation Stayed in Israeli Court
SENTINELONE INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Partial Dismissal of Dennee Suit Under Appeal
SMITTY'S: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Class Suit
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
SOUTHERN CO: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit
SPLUNK INC: Plaintiff Files Bid for Initial OK of Settlement
STABLE ROAD: Agreement Reached in Shareholder Suit
STABLE ROAD: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over Merger
STABLE ROAD: To Settle Shareholder Suit
STATE FARM: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Nguyen Bid to Certify Class
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard, et al., Seek Class Certification
STRIDE INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
SUMMIT MEDICAL: Bid for Partial Judgment in Wiley Suit OK'd in Part
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Suit for $290M Over Wage Theft
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Saleh VPPA Suit
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Williams Class Suit in California
UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Colleton Files Suit in S.D. New York
UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Suit Filed in S.D. New York
UNITED HELPERS: Class Action Discovery in Groulx Due March 25, 2024
UNITED STATES: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Dismissed
UPS STORE: Court Denies Bid to Invalidate Class Suit Waiver
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Levine Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bids to Dismiss Tijerina Suit Granted in Part
WELLS FARGO: $3.75-Mil. Class Settlement in Chang Suit Has Final OK
WILLIAM BURNS: Brewer Files Suit in S.D. New York
ZALKIN LAW FIRM: Deats Suit Removed to S.D. California
ZUFFA LLC: Court Rejects Revocation Antitrust Class Status
*********
ADVOCATE AURORA: Data Breach Claimants May Claim until Mid-Jan 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Volpenhein of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that
millions of patients of Advocate Aurora Health in Wisconsin and
Illinois have until mid-January to take part in a $12.2 million
legal settlement over the unauthorized disclosure of their health
information.
In August, Advocate Aurora Health, the health care system now part
of North Carolina-based Advocate Health, reached a settlement in a
federal class action lawsuit involving millions of patients whose
health information was shared with Facebook and other outside
companies without their permission.
The data breach, which occurred over five years from 2017 to 2022,
affected as many as 3 million people who sought care from Advocate
Aurora's hospitals, clinics and other health care sites in
Wisconsin and Illinois, according to the complaint filed in the
lawsuit.
Because of the breach, the health information of millions of
patients may have been shared with companies like Facebook and
Google, which then used that data to target ads to patients.
Information that may have been shared included:
-- Dates, times and locations of patients' medical appointments
-- Types of appointments or procedures sought by patients
-- The names and specialties of patients' doctors
-- Communications between patients and others in the MyChart
patient portal Other personal information.
In a statement, Aurora Health Care, which is part of Advocate
Health, said it settled the lawsuit to avoid a lengthy and costly
court dispute and that an internal investigation found "no evidence
of misuse or fraud" related to the disclosure of personal health
information.
"We take patient privacy very seriously, employ robust internal
controls to protect patient data and are committed to compliance
with all laws applicable to our operations," the statement said.
The tracking pixels have been the subject of a slew of lawsuits
against health care systems in recent months over similar
violations of data privacy and the unauthorized disclosure of
patients' health information. Froedtert Health also was sued and
entered into a settlement, first reported by the Wisconsin Law
Journal, over its alleged use of tracking pixels on its website and
other web platforms that compromised patients' health information.
The flood of lawsuits began after a nonprofit news organization,
The Markup, in collaboration with news outlet STAT, published an
investigation in June 2022 that found dozens of hospitals' websites
across the country were sharing patients' sensitive health
information with Facebook through the company's tracker, Meta
Pixel. Froedtert Hospital was one of the hospitals examined by The
Markup and found to be sharing health information with Facebook.
Those affected by the Advocate Aurora breach are entitled to a
piece of the settlement, up to $50 each, though the per-person
payment could end up being a lot less, depending on how many people
submit a claim for payment.
In Advocate Aurora's case, the $12,225,000 settlement was
preliminarily approved by a judge in U.S. District Court in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin in August. The settlement will go
before the judge for final approval next year, after everyone
affected by the data breach has been notified of the settlement and
given the opportunity to make a claim for payment, object to the
settlement or opt out of the settlement.
The class action lawsuit was filed last year after Advocate Aurora
Health notified patients in October 2022 that their personal
information may have been disclosed to outside companies without
their knowledge and that the health system had disabled or removed
the tracking pixels from its websites and patient portals.
Advocate Aurora Health is now part of Advocate Health, one of the
largest health systems in the nation that was created late last
year when the Wisconsin and Illinois-based system merged with North
Carolina-based Atrium Health.
Who is part of the settlement in the class action lawsuit against
Advocate Aurora?
About 2.5 million people have been identified as members of the
class action, whose health information was or may have been
disclosed to Facebook and other outside companies without their
authorization.
Those whose information was disclosed include people who visited
Advocate Aurora's website, who used the system's LiveWell app or
who used their Advocate Aurora MyChart account between October 24,
2017 and October 22, 2022.
I was affected by Advocate Aurora's breach. How do I get the
settlement money?
To be part of the settlement, you must submit a claim by Jan. 18,
2024.
You may submit a claim form online by visiting
AdvocateAuroraSettlement.com or you may mail a paper claim form to
Settlement Administrator - 175057, c/o Kroll Settlement
Administration LLC, PO Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324.
When would I get my settlement money?
You would receive your payment after the settlement is finalized
and becomes effective, likely next year.
A hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
March 8, 2024. Payments would likely be mailed to people who filed
a valid claim within two months of the effective date, according to
court records.
What do I give up by being part of the Advocate Aurora settlement?
By being part of the settlement, you would release Advocate Aurora
from any and all claims that relate in any way to the disclosure of
your information through the health system's use of tracking pixels
in this case.
In other words, you would not be able to sue or be part of any
other lawsuit or legal action against Advocate Aurora about or
arising from the claims or issues in this lawsuit with respect to
the alleged sharing of your personal or health information.
How will the settlement money in the class action lawsuit against
Advocate Aurora be divvied up?
The settlement money will be split among patients affected by the
data breach, the attorneys for the people who filed the class
action, the firm administering the settlement and other costs. Only
those patients who submit a valid claim for compensation may
receive part of the settlement.
Under the settlement agreement, the attorneys in the case may seek
up to 35% of the settlement money, or nearly $4.28 million. The
federal district judge overseeing the case will ultimately decide
how much of the settlement the attorneys on the case receive. They
also may seek litigation expenses of up to $30,000.
The 10 patients who filed the class action and are named in the
lawsuit may receive up to $3,500 each from the settlement.
The firm administering the settlement is called Kroll Settlement
Administration, LLC.
Following the payment of administration costs, attorneys' fees and
expenses and other costs, the remaining settlement money will be
split evenly among all of the affected patients who filed a valid
claim for compensation with the settlement administrator.
What if I have an objection to the settlement or want to opt out?
If you want to object to the settlement or part of it, you must
file a letter or a legal brief with the court explaining your
objections by Dec. 19. For more details on filing an objection,
visit AdvocateAuroraSettlement.com and click on the FAQs tab.
You may still file a claim to receive a payment from the settlement
even if you file an objection.
If you want to opt out of the settlement, you must mail a request
for exclusion to the settlement administrator by Dec. 19. For more
details on how to opt out of the settlement, visit
AdvocateAuroraSettlement.com and click on the FAQs tab. [GN]
AEGEAN MARINE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approves the Individual Defendants
Plan of Allocation in the lawsuit titled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE
PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
application and all matters related thereto, including all members
of the Settlement Class, who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Action and the Settlement Class.
Settlement Class means the class defined: (1) in paragraph 1.46 of
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Spyros Gianniotis,
dated April 21, 2023; and (2) in paragraph 1.46 of the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement with Dimitris Melissanidis, dated April
21, 2023.
Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and
adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all persons
and entities, who are Settlement Class Members, advising them of
the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation and of their right to
object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to
persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members to be heard
with respect to the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation.
The Court finds and concludes that the formulas in the Individual
Defendants Plan of Allocation for the calculation of the claims of
Authorized Claimants that are described in the Detailed Notice,
which was disseminated to all Settlement Class Members, provide a
fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds from
the Gianniotis Net Settlement Fund and the Melissanidis Net
Settlement Fund among Settlement Class Members.
The Court finds and concludes that the formulas in the Individual
Defendants Plan of Allocation set forth in the Detailed Notice is,
in all respects, fair and reasonable, and the Court approves the
Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6eyws3 from PacerMonitor.com.
AEGEAN MARINE: Gianniotis Dismissed From Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a final judgment and order of
dismissal with prejudice relating to Spyros Gianniotis in the
lawsuit titled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Spyros Gianniotis
("Gianniotis") and Providing for Notice ("Notice Order") dated June
1, 2023, on the application of the Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement
Systems and Gianniotis, to determine (i) whether the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Gianniotis, dated April 21 2023, (the "Gianniotis Stipulation" or
the "Gianniotis Settlement") are fair, reasonable and adequate for
the settlement of all claims asserted by Lead Plaintiff on behalf
of itself and the Settlement Class, against Gianniotis in the
Action, and should be approved; (ii) whether judgment should be
entered dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice in
favor of Gianniotis and as against all Persons or entities, who are
members of the Settlement Class herein who have not requested
exclusion therefrom; and (iii) whether final judgment should be
entered as to the claims against Gianniotis.
Judge Buchwald finds that due and adequate notice have been given
to the Settlement Class as required in the Notice Order.
The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
Settlement Class defined as:
All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean
Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. ("Aegean") securities or sold
Aegean put options between Feb. 27, 2014, through Nov. 5,
2018, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were
allegedly damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement
Class are: (a) Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries
of Defendants; (b) Persons who have been dismissed from this
Action ("Dismissed Defendants") and their affiliates or
subsidiaries; (c) present or former officers, directors,
partners or controlling Persons as of April 30, 2018, of
Aegean, its subsidiaries or its affiliates, any Defendant or
any Dismissed Defendant, and their immediate family members;
(d) the directors' and officers' liability carriers and any
affiliates or subsidiaries thereof of any Defendant,
Dismissed Defendant or Aegean; (e) any entity in which any
Defendant, Dismissed Defendant or Aegean has or has had a
controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives,
heirs, estates, agents, successors or assigns of any Person
or entity described in the preceding categories.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class is any Settlement Class
Member that validly and timely requested exclusion in accordance
with the requirements set by the Court. A copy of the valid
exclusions is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
With respect to the Settlement Class, the Court finds, solely for
the purposes of the Gianniotis Settlement (and without an
adjudication of the merits), that the prerequisites for a class
action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have been satisfied.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court affirms its determination in its Notice Order that Utah
Retirement Systems is appointed as Class Representative.
Judge Buchwald notes that notice of the pendency of the Action as a
class action and of the proposed Gianniotis Settlement was given to
all Settlement Class Members, who could be identified with
reasonable effort.
Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23, the Court finds that
due and adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all
Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members, advising
them of the Gianniotis Settlement, and of their right to object
thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all
Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members to be heard
with respect to the Gianniotis Settlement.
Thus, Judge Buchwald holds, it is determined that all Settlement
Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment with Prejudice
Regarding Gianniotis.
No Settlement Class Member has filed objections to the Gianniotis
Settlement.
The Court approves the Gianniotis Settlement as set forth in the
Gianniotis Stipulation, and finds that the Gianniotis Settlement
is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class Members.
The Court finds and concludes that the Gianniotis Settling parties
and their respective counsel have complied in all respects with the
requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in
connection with the commencement, maintenance, prosecution, defense
and settlement of the Action.
The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is dismissed on the merits
with prejudice as against the Gianniotis Released Parties only and
without costs except for the payments expressly provided for in the
Gianniotis Stipulation.
Upon the Effective Date of the Gianniotis Settlement, and as
provided in the Gianniotis Stipulation, the Lead Plaintiff and all
other Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their
successors and assigns, and any other Person claiming (now or in
the future) through or on behalf of them (regardless of whether the
Lead Plaintiff or any such Settlement Class Member ever seeks or
obtains any disbursement from the Gianniotis Settlement Fund by any
means, including by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release Form)
will be deemed to have fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished, dismissed and forever discharged all Gianniotis
Released Claims.
Any plan of allocation submitted by Lead Counsel or any order
entered regarding any attorneys' fee and reimbursement of costs and
expenses application will in no way disturb or affect this Judgment
and will be considered separate from this Final Judgment with
Prejudice Regarding Gianniotis.
In the event that the Gianniotis Settlement does not become
effective in accordance with the terms of the Gianniotis
Stipulation or in the event that the Gianniotis Settlement Fund, or
any portion thereof, is returned to Gianniotis or any insurer who
might pay on their behalf, then this Final Judgment with Prejudice
Regarding Gianniotis will be rendered null and void to the extent
provided by and in accordance with the Gianniotis Stipulation, and
will be vacated to the extent provided by the Gianniotis
Stipulation.
As a material condition of the Gianniotis Settlement, the Court
permanently bars, enjoins and restrains as follows: Lead Plaintiff
and all other Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves,
their successors and assigns and any other Person claiming (now or
in the future) through or on behalf of them (regardless of whether
Lead Plaintiff or any such Settlement Class Members ever seeks or
obtains any disbursement from the Gianniotis Settlement Fund by any
means, including without limitation by submitting a Proof of Claim
and Release Form), will be deemed to have fully, finally and
forever released, relinquished, dismissed and forever discharged
all Gianniotis Released Claims.
Without further Order of the Court, the parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of
the Gianniotis Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Oct.
19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzmakj9 from
PacerMonitor.com.
AEGEAN MARINE: Lead Plaintiff's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York awards the Lead Plaintiff's Counsel
fees in the amount of $2,987,499.75 plus interest and costs in the
lawsuit styled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came for hearing before the Court on Oct. 19, 2023 (the
"Final Approval Hearing") on Lead Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in this
action and an award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4) (the
"Fee and Expense Application").
The Court found the Individual Defendants Settlements reached in
this Action to be fair, reasonable and adequate.
Judge Buchwald notes that all capitalized terms not otherwise
defined herein have the same meaning as in the Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Individual Defendants
Settlements; and (II) Final Approval Hearing For The Individual
Defendants Settlements, The Individual Defendants Plan of
Allocation and Motion For Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Detailed Notice").
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
application and all matters related thereto, including all members
of the Settlement Class, who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the ligation and the Settlement Class.
"Settlement Class" means the class defined: (1) in paragraph 1.46
of the April 21, 2023 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Spyros Gianniotis ("Gianniotis Stipulation"); and (2) in paragraph
1.46 of the April 21, 2023 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
with Dimitris Melissanidis (the "Melissanidis Stipulation").
Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and
adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all Persons
and entities who are Settlement Class Members advising them of the
Fee and Expense Application and of their right to object to
thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to Persons
and entities who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with
respect to the Fee and Expense Application.
The Court finds that the Notice to the Settlement Class of the Fee
and Expense Application met the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Section 27 of the Securities Act
of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(7); due process; and any other
applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all
Persons and entities entitled thereto.
No Settlement Class Member has filed objections to the Fee and
Expense Application.
In connection with the Individual Defendants Settlements, the Court
awards Lead Plaintiff's Counsel fees in the amount of $2,987,499.75
plus interest earned thereon for the same time period and at the
same rate as that earned on the Gross Settlement Funds until the
fee is paid, and reimbursement of Counsel's expenses in amount of
$78,303.88.
The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is appropriate and
is fair and reasonable under both the "percentage-of-recovery"
method and using the lodestar cross-check, particularly given the
substantial risks of non-recovery, the substantial time and effort
involved, and the results obtained for the Settlement Class in
connection with these Individual Defendants Settlements.
The award of attorneys' fees and expenses will be paid to Lead
Counsel from the Gross Settlement Funds upon entry of this Order,
subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations.
The "Gross Settlement Funds" refers to $11,949,999 settlements,
including the $11 million settlement with Spyros Gianniotis
("Gianniotis") (the "Gianniotis Settlement" or "Gianniotis
Settlement Fund") and the $9,949,999 settlement with Dimitris
Melissanidis ("Melissanidis") (the "Melissanidis Settlement" or
"Melissanidis Settlement Fund") (Gianniotis and Melissanidis are
referred to collectively as, the "Individual Defendants" and the
Melissanidis Settlement and Gianniotis Settlement are referred to
collectively as, the "Individual Defendants Settlements").
In accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), Lead Plaintiff
Utah Retirement System is awarded $5,000 for reimbursement of their
expenses in the representation of the Settlement Class.
Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the subject matter of this
Action and over all parties to the Action, including the
administration and distribution of the Gianniotis Net Settlement
Fund and Melissandis Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class
Members.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/445j4d87 from PacerMonitor.com.
AEGEAN MARINE: Melissanidis Dismissed From Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a final judgment and order of
dismissal with prejudice relating to Dimitris Melissanidis in the
lawsuit styled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Dimitris Melissanidis and
Providing for Notice ("Notice Order") dated June 1, 2023, on the
application of the Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems and
Melissanidis, to determine (i) whether the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Melissanidis,
dated April 21, 2023, (the "Melissanidis Stipulation" or the
"Melissanidis Settlement") are fair, reasonable and adequate for
the settlement of all claims asserted by the Lead Plaintiff on
behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, against Melissanidis in
the Action, and should be approved; (ii) whether judgment should be
entered dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice in
favor of Melissanidis and as against all Persons or entities who
are members of the Settlement Class herein who have not requested
exclusion therefrom; and (iii) whether final judgment should be
entered as to the claims against Melissanidis.
Judge Buchwald finds that due and adequate notice have been given
to the Settlement Class as required in the Notice Order.
The Court certifies a Settlement Class defined as:
All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean
Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. ("Aegean") securities or sold
Aegean put options between Feb. 27, 2014, through Nov. 5,
2018, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were
allegedly damaged thereby.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Defendants and
any affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants; (b) Persons
who have been dismissed from this Action ("Dismissed
Defendants") and their affiliates or subsidiaries;
(c) present or former officers, directors, partners or
controlling Persons as of April 30, 2018, of Aegean, its
subsidiaries or its affiliates, any Defendant or any
Dismissed Defendant, and their immediate family members;
(d) the directors' and officers' liability carriers and any
affiliates or subsidiaries thereof of any Defendant,
Dismissed Defendant or Aegean; (e) any entity in which any
Defendant, Dismissed Defendant or Aegean has or has had a
controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives,
heirs, estates, agents, successors or assigns of any Person
or entity described in the preceding categories.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class is any Settlement Class
Member that validly and timely requested exclusion in accordance
with the requirements set by the Court. A copy of the valid
exclusions is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
With respect to the Settlement Class, the Court finds, solely for
the purposes of the Melissanidis Settlement (and without an
adjudication of the merits), that the prerequisites for a class
action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have been satisfied.
Pursuant to Rule 23, and for the purposes of the Melissanidis
Settlement only, the Court affirms its determination in its Notice
Order that Utah Retirement Systems is appointed as Class
Representative.
Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23, the Court finds that
due and adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all
Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members, advising
them of the Melissanidis Settlement, and of their right to object
thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all
Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members to be heard
with respect to the Melissanidis Settlement. Thus, it is determined
that all Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment
with Prejudice Regarding Melissanidis.
No Settlement Class Member has filed objections to the Melissanidis
Settlement.
The Court approves the Melissanidis Settlement as set forth in the
Melissanidis Stipulation, and finds that the Melissanidis
Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and
in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court
finds and concludes that the Melissanidis Settling Parties and
their respective counsel have complied in all respects with the
requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in
connection with the commencement, maintenance, prosecution, defense
and settlement of the Action.
Judge Buchwald holds that the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
is dismissed on the merits with prejudice as against the
Melissanidis Released Parties only and without costs except for the
payments expressly provided for in the Melissanidis Stipulation.
Upon the Effective Date of the Melissanidis Settlement, and as
provided in the Melissanidis Stipulation, the Lead Plaintiff and
all other Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their
successors and assigns, and any other Person claiming (now or in
the future) through or on behalf of them (regardless of whether
Lead Plaintiff or any such Settlement Class Member ever seeks or
obtains any disbursement from the Melissanidis Settlement Fund by
any means, including by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
Form) will be deemed to have finally and forever released,
relinquished, dismissed and forever discharged all Melissanidis
Released Claims.
Any plan of allocation submitted by Lead Counsel or any order
entered regarding any attorneys' fee and reimbursement of costs and
expenses application will in no way disturb or affect this Judgment
and will be considered separate from this Final Judgment with
Prejudice Regarding Melissanidis.
In the event that the Melissanidis Settlement does not become
effective in accordance with the terms of the Melissanidis
Stipulation or in the event that the Melissanidis Settlement Fund,
or any portion thereof, is returned to Melissanidis or any insurer
who might pay on their behalf, then this Final Judgment with
Prejudice Regarding Melissanidis will be rendered null and void to
the extent provided by and in accordance with the Melissanidis
Stipulation, and will be vacated to the extent provided by the
Melissanidis Stipulation.
Without further Order of the Court, the parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of
the Melissanidis Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Oct.
19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rccs2j6 from
PacerMonitor.com.
ALASKA AIRLINES: Faces Passengers' Class Suit Over Diverted Flight
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy-Xiaoshi DePaola of KGW reports that passengers who were aboard
a flight diverted to the Portland International Airport when
off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot Joseph Emerson allegedly tried to
shut down the engines midflight have filed a class action lawsuit
against Alaska Airlines and its affiliate, Horizon Air.
A Washington-based law firm filed the lawsuit on November 2, 2023
on behalf of three passengers: two people from San Francisco and a
person from King County, Wash. The complaint alleges emotional and
monetary damages.
The lawsuit lambasts the airlines for an alleged lack of rigorous
screening and standards for pilots and those in the jump seat, as
well as "self-serving" public statements that the complaint says
tried to downplay the incident. The failure to prevent Emerson from
being in the cockpit breached a duty of care to its passengers, the
lawsuit claims.
Emerson had been riding in the cockpit jump seat on a flight from
Everett to San Francisco when he allegedly attempted to activate
the fire suppression systems in both engines, which would have
caused them to shut down. When the plane was about halfway between
Astoria and Portland, Emerson declared "I'm not okay," according to
court documents -- throwing his headset across the cockpit and
attempting to pull the two red handles that would activate the fire
suppression system.
The two pilots prevented him from shutting down the engines,
investigators say, and he was subdued and removed from the cockpit.
Emerson was then arrested after the flight landed at Portland
International Airport.
Alaska Airlines said in a statement that gate agents and the flight
crew did not notice any signs of impairment that would have
prevented Emerson from getting on the plane. He had also passed all
of his mandated FAA medical certifications. According to the
Cockpit Access Security System (CASS), which determines who can sit
in a jump seat, Emerson was eligible to be there as a current
Alaska Airlines captain. Alaska Airlines has since relieved him of
all duties.
Though Emerson told police he had taken psychedelic mushrooms for
the first time several days prior, Emerson gave no indication that
anything was wrong during the first half of the flight, even
engaging the two on-duty pilots in casual conversation, according
to a probable cause affidavit. Emerson's attorney has also stated
that the pilot wasn't under the influence of any intoxicants on the
plane.
Emerson also told police that during the time, "It seemed like the
pilots weren't paying attention to what was going on," court
documents say.
Despite Alaska Airlines' assertions, the lawsuit maintains that the
airlines' "lackadaisical reliance on the presumption of flightcrew
safety . . . is inexplicable." If the airlines had screened Emerson
more thoroughly, the lawsuit concludes, he "could not have been in
position to nearly kill everyone aboard."
The lawsuit cited concerns of "pervasive mental illness" among
pilots; experts have said that many pilots avoid mental health care
for fear of being grounded. It argues that Emerson's
"self-described weeks-long struggle with mental health," as well as
his lack of sleep and use of drugs, should have been known to the
airline.
To prevent similar incidents from happening again, the lawsuit asks
that Alaska Airlines and Horizon be held accountable and "compel a
forthright public explanation . . . why they did not apply rigorous
pre-flight security screening." It also asks that the airlines
tighten safety and screening standards for pilots, "who have the
knowledge and access to initiate a mass tragedy with their bare
hands."
KGW contacted Alaska Airlines regarding the lawsuit.
"We have received the complaint and are reviewing it," the airline
said in an email. "The pilots and flight attendants operating
Flight 2059 responded without hesitation to ensure the safety of
all onboard. We are incredibly proud and grateful for their skilled
actions."
State prosecutors have charged Emerson with 83 counts of
second-degree attempted murder, one for each of the other
passengers and crew on the plane, and one count of endangering an
aircraft. Federal prosecutors have also charged him by criminal
complaint with one count of interfering with flight crew members
and attendants, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in
prison.
Emerson was arraigned last week at the Multnomah County courthouse,
where he entered a plea of not guilty to all of the state charges.
His next arraignment will be in late November. [GN]
ALDI INC: Cordaro Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Cocktails
------------------------------------------------------
SARA CORDARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02491
(M.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its
peaches, pears, grapes, pineapple and cherries "In 100% Fruit
Juice" under the Sweet Harvest brand.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the label made by the
Defendant "In 100% Fruit Juice" is misleading because the fruit
pieces shown on the packaging are served in a solution containing
more than just juice but added water and the chemical additive of
ascorbic acid.
ALDI INC. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries,
meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Raynaldo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned RONALD
RAYNALDO, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court is Defendant American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("SACAC"). The Plaintiffs filed the SACAC on Nov. 17, 2022. The
Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral
argument and the matter is deemed submitted.
The Plaintiffs bring numerous claims against Honda in the SACAC.
They allege that Honda CR-Vs (model years 2017-2019) and Honda
Accords (model years 2016-2019) ("Class Vehicles") have a common
defect that causes parasitic draining. In its Sept. 20, 2022 Order
Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint, the Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to identify
the electrical components that allegedly caused parasitic draining.
Parasitic draining is the depletion of a battery's power when the
vehicle is turned off.
The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased defective vehicles from
Honda. The Plaintiffs are Ronald Raynaldo, Richard Barrie, Fernanda
Nunes Ferreira, George Jones, Robert Lizzul, Mithcell Bryon
Pazanki, Harry Rapp, Dennis Woods, Dayane Tessinari, Brendan
Sanger, and Jason Casey. The Plaintiffs allege that their vehicles
suffered from issues, including failure to start and diminished
reliability and safety.
Honda's arguments as to why the SACAC should be dismissed largely
mirror those it made in seeking dismissal of the previous Amended
Class Action Complaint. They contend that (1) Plaintiffs still fail
to plead a defect; (2) the statutory fraud claims are not
adequately pled; (3) the Plaintiffs fail to allege breach of
warranty; (4) the Plaintiffs are unable to maintain a claim under
an implied warranty theory because they fail to adequately plead
privity or an exception to that requirement; fail to show their
cars are unmerchantable; and fail to show that any implied warranty
survives beyond the duration of the express warranty; and (5) the
Plaintiffs' equitable relief claims fail.
In the SACAC, the Plaintiffs describe electronic systems or
"modules" that work together to control the functions of the
vehicle. At a high level, these electronic control units ("ECUs")
communicate via the Controller Area Network ("CAN"). Specifically,
the Plaintiffs allege that problems associated with the Fast
Controller Area Network ("F-CAN"), the network between the
powertrain and units controlling the chassis functions, prevent the
F-CAN from entering sleep mode. The result is that the F-CAN draws
as much as 350mA even when the vehicle is off, more than seven
times the amount it should be drawing. This causes various
electrical units to draw too much battery power, which lowers the
voltage of the battery, causing various malfunctions and ultimately
battery failure.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles suffer from an
inherent defect. That alleged defect is that the vehicle fails to
properly shut off, thereby, draining the battery. The defect
impacts the vehicles' F-CAN, "which is a subnetwork of the
vehicles' main CAN system." The CAN is how the ECUs communicate.
According to the Plaintiffs, each new car purchased was covered by
a New Vehicle Limited Warranty ("NVLW"). The warranty that they
allege covered their vehicles included any repairs or replacement
for "material or workmanship" defects.
The Plaintiffs bring a total of 23 claims under the laws of
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, New York, Florida, Iowa,
and California, as well as common-law claims. Those claims
generally sound in fraud and are based on omission or concealment;
are for breach of warranty; or are for unjust enrichment. They seek
damages; injunctive and declaratory relief; and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The threshold question on this motion is whether the Plaintiffs
have adequately pled a defect. The Court is persuaded that they
have. Next, the Plaintiffs' claims can be grouped into two basic
categories: those sounding in fraud and those based on breach of
warranty.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled statutory
fraud claims but have failed to adequately plead their concealment
or omission claims sounding in fraud. The Plaintiffs' breach of
express warranty claims are adequately pled for those plaintiffs,
who allege that they experienced problems with their vehicles in
connection with this alleged defect before the expiration of the
warranty. The Plaintiffs' implied breach of warranty claims fail
for not adequately alleging privity as required by various state
laws.
Judge Gilliam also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
fail to plead an inadequate remedy at law. The Judge opines that
the Plaintiffs seeking only monetary compensation without
identifying any future harm to be redressed may not seek equitable
relief. The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim should be dismissed, at a minimum, because they fail to
identify the law under which they seek relief.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Honda's
motion to dismiss as follows:
1. Honda's motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' statutory
fraud claims;
2. Honda's motion is granted without leave to amend as to
the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment or fraudulent
omission claims;
3. Honda's motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' breach of
express warranty claim;
4. Honda's motion is granted with leave to amend as to
the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claims; and
5. Honda's motion is granted without leave to amend as to
the Plaintiffs' equitable relief claims.
To the extent the Plaintiffs can amend any claim as to which leave
was granted consistent with their Rule 11 obligations, Judge
Gilliam holds that any amended complaint must be filed within 28
days from the date of this Order, and the Plaintiffs may not add
any new causes of action or defendants in any amended complaint.
The Court is strongly of the view that serial pleading litigation
is an inefficient and time-consuming use of Court and party
resources, and the Plaintiffs need to plead their very best case,
with adequate supporting factual allegations, as to any claims as
to which leave has been granted.
The Court is very unlikely to allow further leave to amend as to
any claim not adequately pled in the next amended complaint, given
that the Plaintiffs will have had multiple opportunities to state a
claim by that point.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bddu8adt from PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahmed Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
FAIZAN AHMED; JAMAAL ALJAIDI; SYED HUSSANI; and ZUBAIR MOHAMMAD,
individually on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-15569
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drive testers.
AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS, INC. specializes in the Information
Technology and Services area. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron B. Maduff, Esq.
BARRETT & FARAHANY
77 W Wacker Dr. Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 800-8581
Email: Aaron@justiceatwork.com
APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
APA Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Kulp Minerals class suit in the Fifth
Judicial District.
On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class
action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache
Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial
District.
The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to
represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under
New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments.
The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in this lawsuit.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural
gas
liquids.
APA CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
APA Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Plymouth County Retirement System class
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.
On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement
System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) against the Company and certain current and former
officers.
The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class
action, alleges that (1) the Company intentionally used unrealistic
assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil
and gas in Alpine High; (2) the Company did not have the proper
infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or
transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts
purported; (3) certain statements and omissions artificially
inflated the value of the Company's operations in the Permian
Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural
gas
liquids.
AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Ortmann Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Ortmann shareholder
class suit in the United States District Court of New York.
On April 15, 2022, a purported shareholder class action complaint,
Ortmann v. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., case no.
1:22-cv-02185, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Eastern District of New York),
naming us and certain of its officers as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its financial guidance and
commercial prospects in violation of certain federal securities
laws.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.
On June 2, 2022, the case was transferred from the Eastern District
of New York to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.
On February 20, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.
On May 22, 2023 the lead plaintiff filed their amended complaint.
On October 20, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The Company intends to continue vigorously defending ourselves in
this action.
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a fully integrated
biopharmaceutical company focused on delivering therapies to treat
targeted patient populations with a high unmet medical need that
are impacted by autoimmune, kidney and rare diseases.
BAR LUNATICO: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bar Lunatico, LLC.
The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Bar Lunatico, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08067-LDH-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bar Lunatico, LLC -- https://www.barlunatico.com/ -- is a
musician-owned bar, restaurant and music venue in Bed-Stuy,
BK.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Torres Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend the Torres securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On November 20, 2020, Luis Torres, individually and on behalf of a
putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Securities Class Action") in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas against Berry Corp. and certain of
its current and former directors and officers (collectively, the
"Defendants").
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (as amended, the "Securities Act"), and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended,
the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a putative class of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's 2018 IPO; or (ii) Berry Corp.'s
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the "Class
Period").
In particular, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements during the Class Period and in the
offering materials for the IPO, concerning the Company's business,
operational efficiency and stability, and compliance policies, that
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, resulting in
injury to the purported class members when the value of Berry
Corp.'s common stock declined following release of its financial
results for the third quarter of 2020 on November 3, 2020.
On November 1, 2021, the court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of the same
putative class under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other
things, that the Company and the individual Defendants made false
and misleading statements between July 26, 2018 and November 3,
2020 regarding the Company's permits and permitting processes.
The amended complaint does not quantify the alleged losses but
seeks to recover all damages sustained by the putative class as a
result of these alleged securities violations, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 24, 2022 and on
September 13, 2022, the court issued an order denying that motion,
and the case moved into discovery.
On February 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and on April 14, 2023, the defendants filed their
opposition; the plaintiffs filed their reply on May 26, 2023, and a
hearing on the motion for class certification was set for August
23, 2023.
On July 31, 2023, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding memorializing an agreement-in-principle to settle all
claims in the Securities Class Action for an aggregate sum of $2.5
million.
On September 18, 2023, the plaintiffs and Defendants executed a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.
On October 18, 2023, the Court granted that motion, issuing a
preliminary approval order and scheduling a final settlement
approval hearing for February 6, 2024.
The parties will now move forward with the notice and approval
process, which is expected to include, among other things, the
February 6, 2024 final approval hearing, an opt-out process, and
opportunities for class members to object to the settlement.
The Defendants continue to maintain that the claims are without
merit and admit no liability in connection with the settlement.
Berry is an independent upstream energy company with a focus on
onshore, low geologic risk, long-lived conventional reserves in
the
San Joaquin basin of California and the Uinta basin of Utah.
BEST BAGEL & COFFEE: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Bagel & Coffee,
LLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Best Bagel & Coffee, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-08082-DLI-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Best Bagel & Coffee, LLC -- https://bestbagelandcoffee.com/ -- is a
bagel shop with straightforward, neighborhood outpost for grab-&-go
bagels, sandwiches & java drinks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BEST BUY LIQUORS: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy Liquors,
Inc. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Liquors, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-08068-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Best Buy Liquors, Inc. -- https://bestbuyliquors.com/ -- is a wine
store and supplier of globe-spanning spirits & wines sold in
massive warehouse-like environs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BETTER THAN PANTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Than Pants,
LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Better Than Pants, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-09508 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Better Than Pants, LLC -- https://www.betterthanpants.com/ --
offers catalog of thousands of funny, offensive, and sometimes just
plain dumb t-shirts. High quality prints on heavyweight cotton tees
shipped fast.[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
BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE: Greeley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Bottle Coffee,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rebecca Greeley, Mark Hernandez,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Blue Bottle Coffee, LLC, Does 1 To 50,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610084 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Oct. 30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc. -- http://bluebottlecoffee.com/-- is a
coffee roaster and retailer once headquartered in Oakland,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939-1709
Phone: 415-461-6400
Fax: 415-461-3900
Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
BOOT BARN: Discloses Payment of Settlement in Labor-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
California labor-related class suit settlement was paid on
September 30, 2023.
On February 27, 2020, one employee, on behalf of themself and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, which includes claims for penalties under
California's Private Attorney General Act, in the Sacramento County
Superior Court, Case No. 34-2019-00272000-CU-OE-GDS, alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal periods
and rest breaks, and an alleged violation of the suitable seating
requirement as per California Labor Law among other things.
The Company reached a settlement for an amount that is not material
to the consolidated financial statements, and all settlement
amounts have been paid as of September 30, 2023.
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. is a lifestyle retail chain based in
California.
CAMPING WORLD: Hearing on Cybersecurity-Related Suit Set for Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
next hearing for the combined cybersecurity-related class suit is
set for December 5, 2023.
In December 2022, three putative class action complaints were filed
against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries arising out of
the Cybersecurity Incident.
On March 30, 2023, the Company and plaintiffs reached an agreement
in principle to resolve the putative class action complaints for an
immaterial amount subject to the execution of a settlement
agreement and court approval.
On April 11, 2023, for purposes of effectuating the settlement
reached with Company, the original complaints were dismissed and
refiled as a combined state court complaint.
On June 15, 2023, the parties executed the settlement agreement.
On June 28, 2023, the plaintiffs' attorneys in the combined state
court case filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.
On August 10, 2023 the court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement hearing at
which time the court requested additional information.
On September 28, 2023, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement without prejudice.
The next hearing date is December 5, 2023.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. is a retailer of recreational RVs and
related products and services.
CAVA GROUP: Faces Hamman PFAS-Related Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
CAVA Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 16, 2023, that it is currently facing
charges in court relating to organic fluorine and per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the packaging of its grain and
salad bowls.
In April 2022, the company was named as a defendant in a purported
class action complaint "Hamman et al. v. Cava Group, Inc." that was
filed on April 27, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California. An amended complaint was subsequently filed
on August 18, 2022.
After an initial round of motion to dismiss briefing, the court
granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss on
February 8, 2023. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on March 1, 2023 seeking, among other relief,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and medical
monitoring. The complaint alleges that certain of its products are
unfit for human consumption due to the packaging containing
allegedly heightened levels of organic fluorine and unsafe PFAS,
and that consumers were misled by certain marketing claims asserted
by the company regarding the health and sustainability of its
products. The complaint further alleges that the company products
may have caused bodily injuries to the putative class members who
consumed the company's products.
On April 14, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. On May 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the company
responded to the opposition on June 30, 2023. As of the date
hereof, this motion is pending.
CAVA Group, Inc. is into consumer packaged goods consisting of the
its proprietary dips, spreads and dressings. It also operates 279
fast-casual CAVA restaurants in 24 states and Washington D.C.
CEP AMERICA: Faces $20 Million 401(k) Excessive Fees Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that a physician-owned
healthcare group allegedly paid about $20 million in excessive
administrative and recordkeeping fees to Charles Schwab Corporation
for its 401(k) plan, according to a proposed class lawsuit.
Two plan participants say CEP America LLC, which has done business
as Vituity since 2018, forced the plan "into investments that
benefited Schwab at the expense of the Plan" and approved plan
payments to the company, according to their complaint filed on
November 1, 2023 in the US District Court for the Northern District
of California. They brought the suit on behalf of people who
participated in the plan at any point. [GN]
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Slaten Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the lawsuit
entitled ALEXIS SLATEN, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN DIOR PERFUMES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00409-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant
Christian Dior Perfumes on the grounds Dior deceptively labels and
advertises the sun protection factor (SPF or sunscreen) benefits of
certain cosmetic products. Before the Court is Dior's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
Judge Corley opines that the Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead
Dior's products' labels are false or misleading to reasonable
consumers because, after referencing the products' back labels, no
reasonable consumer could interpret the front labels' "24H"
representation as applying to the products' sunscreen.
The Plaintiff, a California resident, bought Dior's Forever
Foundation from a Macy's store in Daly City, California, for
several years. The Plaintiff purchased Dior's Forever Foundation
based on the product's labeling. Based on the label, the Plaintiff
believed the product would provide cosmetic coverage and sun
protection for 24 hours. However, the sun protection provided by
the Dior Forever Foundation only lasts for two hours at most.
Indeed, the drug facts label on the back of the product's packaging
provides directions to "reapply at least every 2 hours," though the
same instruction is not printed on the product bottle.
Had the Plaintiff known the product would not provide 24-hour sun
protection, she would not have purchased the product or, at least,
would have paid less for the product. The Plaintiff also challenges
the sun protection claims on Dior's Forever Skin Glow Foundation
product packaging, which she alleges is substantially and
stylistically similar to those made on the Forever Foundation
packaging.
Judge Corley says Dior's Forever Foundation's front label is
ambiguous as to whether the "24H" representation applies to the
cosmetic, that is, the foundation alone, or also to the product's
sun protection benefits. As the Court previously concluded, "24H"
might mean both the cosmetic and sun protection benefits last 24
hours. But it could also plausibly mean only the cosmetic benefits
last 24 hours.
Judge Corley finds that Dior's Forever Foundation's front label is
ambiguous as to whether the "24H" representation applies to the
product's sunscreen. The product's back label resolves the
ambiguity by directing consumers using the product as sunscreen to
reapply the product at least every two hours.
Because the back label resolves the front label's ambiguity such
that no reasonable consumer could interpret the front label's "24H"
representation as applying to the product's sunscreen, Judge Corley
holds that the Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead Dior's Forever
Foundation's labels are false or misleading to reasonable
consumers. Accordingly, Dior's motion to dismiss on this basis is
granted.
The Plaintiff also alleges Dior's Forever Skin Glow Foundation,
which she did not buy, predominately, uniformly, and consistently
includes, on the principal display panel of the product boxes and
bottles, an SPF claim alongside a claim that the product lasts
longer than two hours. The pertinent part of the product's back
label is the same as Dior's Forever Foundation's back label. The
Plaintiff alleges both products represent they will provide sun
protection for longer than two hours.
Under the Plaintiff's theory of misrepresentation, the products are
substantially similar. Thus, the Plaintiff has standing to assert
class claims based on both products.
Finding no material distinction between the labeling of the two
products, Judge Corley says the analysis applies to both the Dior
Forever Foundation and Dior Forever Skin Glow Foundation.
Accordingly, Judge Corley grants Dior's motion to dismiss. Because
McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023) was
decided after the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the Court
grants the Plaintiff leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be
filed within 20 days of the date of this Order.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 54.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3js4cw9b from PacerMonitor.com.
CLARK COUNTY, NV: Faces Parents' Class Suit Over Cyberattack
------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Passoth and C.C. McCandless of FOX5 report that FOX5 has
obtained a copy of a class action lawsuit filed this week against
CCSD.
A cyberattack on the school district began last month and the
plaintiffs claim there has been a subsequent leak of hundreds of
thousands of student files.
FOX5 spoke with the plaintiff Erin Timrawi and Tim Timrawi back in
October when news of the cyberattack on the district first broke.
Tim Timrawi is an information technology expert. The Timrawi's own
a cyber security company in Las Vegas and also have a child at a
CCSD school.
"It is our job to protect our children . . . Having our kids before
reaching adulthood, having their information online on the dark web
is for me a bridge too far. This is where we have to stop and make
a stand. I am not willing to allow them to use my kid as a guinea
pig," Tim Timrawi contended.
The complaint alleges CCSD has a duty under both state and federal
law to protect the information they store on students, their
families, and staff. The suit claims CCSD's system was breached
before in 2020 and they should have seen this attack coming. "This
was an entirely foreseeable event that could and should have been
prevented but was not, due to the negligent design of CCSD's
network," the suit states.
The civil complaint cites the school district's "recklessness" and
it says that CCSD is "in violation of numerous regulations and
standards." It also said that the defendant "failed to implement
reasonable and adequate security procedures" to protect the data
that was stolen.
The lawsuit also states: "To date, CCSD has failed and/or refused
to fully and adequately notify victims of their attack that their
personal information was improperly accessed and stolen."
The lawsuit seeks relief including damages, injunctive relief,
equitable relief, attorney's fees, and other expenses.
FOX5 reached out to CCSD about this lawsuit but have not heard
back.
As FOX5 has previously reported, the hackers have messaged us
sending proof of their access to private student files. They
messaged again on November 2, 2023 saying they still have access to
CCSD's network. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities
class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
In July and August 2021, three purported securities class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and employees, and certain venture capital and investment
firms.
The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act, in connection with the registration
statement and prospectus filed in connection with the Direct
Listing.
In November 2021, these actions were consolidated and recaptioned
as In re Coinbase Global Securities Litigation, and an amended
complaint was filed.
The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Company disputes the claims in these cases and is vigorously
defending against them.
Coinbase Global, Inc., branded Coinbase -- http://www.coinbase.com/
-- is an American publicly traded company that operates a
cryptocurrency exchange platform.[BN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Underwood class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In October 2021, a purported class action captioned Underwood et
al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company alleging
claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and 29(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and
violations of certain California and Florida state statutes.
On March 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes
of action.
Among other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 1, 2023, the court dismissed all federal claims (with
prejudice) and state law claims (without prejudice) against
Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong.
Subsequently, on February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed that
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals"), and the parties completed briefing the appeal
on September 13, 2023.
The Court of Appeals has not set a date for oral argument.
The defendants continue to dispute the claims in this case and
intend to vigorously defend against them.
Coinbase Global, Inc., branded Coinbase -- http://www.coinbase.com/
-- is an American publicly traded company that operates a
cryptocurrency exchange platform.[BN]
CORDOBA MINERAL: Faces Suit Over Alacran Mining Operations
----------------------------------------------------------
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that its subsidiary Cordoba
Mineral Corp., along with the National Mining Agency, Ministry of
Mines and Energy, the local environmental authority, the
Municipality of Puerto Libertador and the State of Cordoba, were
served with a class action claim by the Alacran Community.
This class action seeks an injunction against Cordoba's operations
in the Alacran area and an injunction against the prior declaration
by the authorities that the Alacran Community's mining activities
were illegal. The claim was initially filed with the Administrative
Court of Medellin, which remanded the case to the Administrative
Court of Monteria, which contested it and submitted the case to the
Council of State. The Council of State determined the
Administrative Court of Monteria as the competent tribunal, where
the process is currently being conducted. The Administrative Court
of Monteria admitted the commencement of the class action on
September 2021. The decision was challenged by Cordoba and other
defendants and confirmed by the Court. Cordoba timely filed its
response to the lawsuit and statement of defense and opposition to
the injunction requested by plaintiffs.
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. is into advanced mineral exploration
technology with electric metals exploration projects and mineral
exploration efforts focus on copper as well as other metals
including nickel, vanadium, cobalt, platinum group elements, gold
and silver.
DCG NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Contract Price, All State Says
---------------------------------------------------------
ALL STATE 12 GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCG NEW YORK INC.;
244 E 52 OWNER LLC; and "JOHN DOE 1" through "JOHN DOE 10,"
Defendants, Case No. 160678/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Nov. 1,
2023) alleges violation of the Prompt Payment Act of the State of
New York.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff for the full value of the work, leaving a balance due and
owing from the Defendant in the amount of $505,017.90 for the fair
and reasonable value of said work.
DCG NEW YORK INC. operates in the construction industry business.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Sitaras, Esq.
Almerinda Centore-Sitaras, Esq.
SITARAS &ASSOCIATES, PLLC
200 Liberty Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 430-6410
Email: alma@sitaraslaw.com
DEL MONTE FOODS: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Bryan Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned
KERSTINE BRYAN, Plaintiff v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00865-MMC (N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is Defendant Del Monte Foods, Inc.'s motion, filed
Sept. 8, 2023, "to Dismiss First Amended Complaint" ("FAC")
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Kerstine Bryan has filed opposition, to which Del Monte
has replied.
Del Monte is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in California. Bryan, a citizen of Oregon, alleges she
purchased, at retailers throughout Oregon, fruit cups manufactured
by Del Monte, specifically, "Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks," and
that she did so in reliance on an assertedly false and misleading
statement made on their respective front labels.
Specifically, Bryan alleges that in purchasing the fruit cups, she
saw and relied on the phrase "fruit naturals," with a bolded
emphasis on "naturals," which she understood to mean the products
contained only natural ingredients, when, in fact, they contained
multiple synthetic ingredients, including citric acid, potassium
sorbate, sodium benzoate, and methylcellulose gum.
Ms. Bryan further alleges that other Del Monte products
(hereinafter, together with Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks, the
"Products") include the same "fruit naturals" phrase on their front
labels, despite containing the same synthetic ingredients. Based on
said allegations, Bryan, on her own behalf and on behalf of two
putative classes, asserts the following three claims for relief:
(1) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Count
I); (2) Violation of The False Advertising Law ("FAL") (Count II);
and (3) Violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA")
(Count III).
By the instant motion, Del Monte seeks an order dismissing the FAC
in its entirety for failure to state a claim. Del Monte argues that
no reasonable consumer would be misled by its Products' labels as a
matter of law. In support thereof, Del Monte relies on McGinity v.
Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023), a decision
issued on June 9, 2023, after Del Monte's motion to dismiss Bryan's
initial complaint and Bryan's opposition thereto had been filed.
Here, the front label's statement, "fruit naturals," like the label
considered in McGinity, does not make any affirmative promise about
what proportion of the ingredients are natural, and, as in
McGinity, the Court finds such ambiguity can be resolved by
reference to the back label, which clearly discloses the inclusion
of multiple synthetic ingredients.
In sum, the Court cannot say that the front label is "unambiguously
deceptive," such that Del Monte is precluded from insisting that
the back label be considered together with the front label, and
Bryan has not plausibly alleged that the Products' front label, as
clarified by the back label, would mislead a reasonable consumer
into thinking that the Products contain no synthetic ingredients.
Accordingly, the FAC is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim.
Although Bryan seeks leave to amend whatever claims may be found
deficient, Judge Chesney says she provides no elaboration in
support thereof, either as to any new allegations or other
potential additions, and, accordingly, such a request will be
denied.
For the reasons stated, Judge Chesney rules that Del Monte's motion
to dismiss the FAC is granted, and the FAC is dismissed without
further leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3pjdt56j from PacerMonitor.com.
DERMTECH INC: Continues to Defend Bagheri Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermtech Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the company continues
to defend itself from the Bagheri class suit in California.
On October 16, 2023, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Bagheri v. DermTech, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-1885-DMS-JLB, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California against the Company and certain of its current and/or
former officers (collectively, "Defendants").
The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
May 3, 2022 and November 3, 2022.
The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s
business, operations, and prospects.
The action includes claims for damages and an award of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees and expert fees.
Given the early stage of this litigation, the probability of an
outcome cannot be determined at this time.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims.
DERMTECH, INC. produces and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products. The Company offers medicines for early detection of skin
cancer and inflammatory diseases. [BN]
DIGITALOCEAN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Agarwal Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Agarwal federal securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On September 12, 2023, a federal securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us and certain of our executive
officers, captioned Ashish Agarwal, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc., et.
al. (Case 1:23-cv-08060).
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that we made
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business.
The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired DigitalOcean securities from
February 16, 2023 through August 25, 2023 and unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief
that the Court deems appropriate.
While the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, it is
possible that it could incur losses associated with it, although it
is not possible to estimate the amount of any loss or range of
possible loss that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements, penalties or other resolutions of such proceedings,
based on the early stage thereof, the fact that alleged damages
have not been specified, the uncertainty as to the certification of
a class and the size of any certified class, and the lack of
resolution on significant factual and legal issues.
DMS HEALTH: Boyd Files Suit in D. North Dakota
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DMS Health
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Constance Boyd,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DMS
Health Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00212-ARS (D.N.D., Oct.
30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
DMS Health -- https://www.dmshealth.com/ -- delivers interim and
long-term mobile diagnostic imaging solutions featuring the right
technology and care to meet healthcare facility needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Michael Miller, Esq.
SOLBERG STEWART MILLER
PO Box 1897
Fargo, ND 58107-1897
Phone: (701) 237-3166
Email: tmiller@solberglaw.com
DOCUSIGN INC: Must Oppose Weston Class Cert Bid by Jan. 19, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD R. WESTON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, CYNTHIA
GAYLOR, and LOREN ALHADEFF, Case No. 3:22-cv-00824-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order modifying class
certification schedule as follows:
Event Date Due
Defendants' Opposition to Lead Jan. 19, 2024
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification
Lead Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Apr. 17, 2024
Support of Their Motion for Class
Certification
Hearing on Lead Plaintiffs' Motion May 15, 2024
for Class Certification
.
DocuSign is an American company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, that allows organizations to manage electronic
agreements.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sjipPG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irina Vasilchenko, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Lisa Strejlau, Esq.
David Saldamando, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
ivasilchenko@labaton.com
lstrejlau@labaton.com
dsaldamando@labaton.com
- and -
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
- and -
Joseph Gulino, Esq.
DRRT
340 West Flagler Street, 2nd Floor
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 760-8030
Facsimile: (305) 760-8030
E-mail: jgulino@drrtcom
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 Northwest 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
- and -
Jason S. Risch, Esq.
RISCH PISCA, PLLC
407 W. Jefferson St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 345 9929
E-mail: jrisch@rischpisca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dean S. Kristy, Esq.
Jennifer C. Bretan, Esq.
Marie Bafus, Esq.
Sofia Ritala, Esq.
Felix S. Lee, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
E-mail: dkristy@fenwick.com
jbretan@fenwick.com
mbafus@fenwick.com
sritala@fenwick.com
flee@fenwick.com
DXC TECHNOLOGY: CSC Class Suit Trial Set for September 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Superior Court for the State of California set the trial date for
the CSC class suit in September 2025.
On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants.
The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of
material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected
performance.
The putative class of plaintiffs includes former shareholders of
Computer Sciences Corporation ("CSC") who exchanged their CSC
shares for the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering
documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC.
The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome
of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021.
Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order
permitting additional briefing by the parties.
In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the
Company moved to dismiss.
In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint.
In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Company moved to dismiss.
In January 2023, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
In March 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial
date for September 2025.
A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
scheduled for January 2024.
The Company believes that the final remaining lawsuit described
above is also without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it.
DXC Technology Company helps global companies run their mission
critical systems and operations while modernizing IT, optimizing
data architectures, and ensuring security and scalability across
public, private and hybrid clouds.
ELI LILLY & CO: Painters Third Party Payor Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Painters third party payor class suit is ongoing in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
The Company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) in a third party payor
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Painters et al. v. Takeda et al.).
Plaintiffs claim that they and similarly situated class members are
entitled to recover money paid for or to reimburse Actos
prescriptions because of alleged concealment of bladder cancer
risk.
The Company's agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and
indemnify the company against its losses and expenses with respect
to U.S. litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of
Actos and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of
the agreement.
In August 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted its and Takeda's petition
for permission to appeal the class certification order.
This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of
Indianapolis, IN.
ENGAGESMART INC: Continues to Defend Franchi Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
EngageSmart Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Franchi class suit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On October 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Franchi v. EngageSmart, et al., No. 2023-1093-JTL.
The complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors, General Atlantic (IC), L.P., General
Atlantic (IC) SPV., L.P. (collectively, "GA"), Vista Equity
Partners Management, LLC, Vista Equity Partners Fund VIII, L.P.,
Icefall Parent, LLC, and Icefall Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively,
"Vista").
The complaint alleges that the proposed merger with affiliates of
Vista breaches the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation (the "Certificate") by providing for different
treatment of the common shares owned by public stockholders as
compared to the common shares owned by GA in connection with the
proposed merger.
The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract against the
Company for breach of the Certificate, claims against GA and Vista
for tortious interference with the Certificate, claims for breach
of fiduciary duty against the members of the Company's board of
directors, claims for breach of fiduciary duty against GA, and a
claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against
Vista.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the closing of the proposed
merger unless and until the merger complies with the Certificate,
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses.
The Company believes the claims asserted in the action to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.
EngageSmart Inc. provides customer engagement software as a service
(SaaS) platforms. The Company offers an application that simplifies
tasks like paying a bill, going paper-less, making a donation,
setting up an appointment, and viewing customer history.
EngageSmart serves customers worldwide.
Address
ENSERVCO CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
Enservco Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that on May 22, 2022, a
certain Ali Safe, acting individually and on behalf of others,
filed a class action complaint in United States District Court for
the District of Colorado alleging that the company and certain of
its officers violated securities laws in relation to certain of its
SEC Form 10-Q filings in 2021 which required amendments and
restatements to such filings.
On November 28, 2022, the plaintiff amended their complaint
primarily to add Jan Lambert as lead plaintiff and to include Cross
River Partners, L.P. and Cross River Capital Management, LLC as
defendants.
On February 10, 2023, the company filed a motion in the United
States District Court of Colorado to dismiss the class action
complaint, citing a lack of specific facts and evidence brought by
the plaintiffs in alleging the company and certain of its officers
committed securities fraud. As described in the motion requesting
dismissal, the company cited a lack and failure by the plaintiffs
to bring significant and specific evidence in claiming that the
company and certain of its officers acted in an intentionally
fraudulent or misleading manner, in connection with the company
restating its Form 10-Q financial filings for the first, second,
and third fiscal quarters of 2021, due to errors relating to
complex and technical tax and accounting issues, which did not have
an impact on revenue, operating expenses, operating loss, or
adjusted EBITDA for the three 2021 quarterly financial
restatements.
Enservco Corporation provides various services to the domestic
onshore oil and natural gas industry including hot oiling and
acidizing and frac water heating.
FCA US: Wins Summary Judgment vs Zuehlsdorf
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steve Zuehlsdorf v. FCA,
US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
5:18-cv-01877-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal
entered an order:
(1) Granting the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment;
(2) Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification; and
(3) Vacating the November 6, 2023 and December 4, 2023
Hearings.
On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff Zuehlsdorf filed a complaint
against Defendant FCA. On November 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint against Defendant. The Plaintiff filed a
Seconded Amended Complaint against Defendant on November 21, 2018.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the SAC on December 14, 2018
-- Vehicle Purchase
On October 27, 2012, Plaintiff purchased his model-year 2012 Jeep
Compass vehicle from Redlands Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram. While
shopping for his vehicle, Plaintiff was "focused" on the Compass
because he "liked the style," the available $2,500 rebate, and "the
idea of a new car with a warranty."
The Plaintiff does not recall reviewing anything about his vehicle
except the Jeep website and the vehicle's window sticker, nor does
he recall seeing, hearing, or reading anything false about the
vehicle prior to purchasing.
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sdM8JN at no extra charge.[CC]
FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FIGS Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
On November 1, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging, among other things, violations of
the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and
misleading statements in its initial public offering in May 2021
and thereafter.
An additional putative class action complaint was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors,
stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on December
8, 2022, making similar allegations to the previously referenced
purported class action.
On February 14, 2023, the court consolidated the two complaints and
appointed lead plaintiffs.
On April 10, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company, certain of its executive officers
and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO,
alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and
Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements
between May 27, 2021 and February 28, 2023 with respect to its
ability to predict customer demand and to manage its supply chain,
inventory, air freight usage and costs (the “Class Action
Securities Litigation”).
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorney's
fees and costs.
On May 25, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and that motion is fully briefed
and pending with the court.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against such
claim; however, it cannot be certain of the outcome of its ongoing
proceedings and, if determined adversely to the Company, its
business and financial condition may be adversely affected.
FIGS, Inc. is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel and
lifestyle
brand company. It designs and sells scrubwear, and other non-scrub
offerings, such as lab coats, underscrubs, outerwear, activewear,
loungewear, compression socks and footwear.
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Quinones class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On June 3, 2021 and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David
Lucchino.
On March 21, 2022, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al. and
on May 16, 2022, the Company's Chief Development Officer, Dr. Carl
LeBel, was added as a defendant.
The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions about the Company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202)
for its product candidate FX-322 in the Company's public
disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021.
The lawsuit sought, among other things, damages in connection with
the Company's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between
October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July
15, 2022.
On March 29, 2023, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted and
the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety.
On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the order
dismissing the lawsuit.
On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellant submitted its opening brief
to the First Circuit.
The Company filed its response brief on October 27, 2023.
This matter is at the very early stages of the legal process, and
as a result, the Company is not able to estimate a range of
possible loss.
Since an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be
made at this time, no accruals have been recorded as of September
30, 2023.
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: E.D. Washington Dismisses Laughlin Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit titled LINDA LAUGHLIN, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS,
INC. d/b/a/ FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA, and RENAL CARE
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00180-TOR (E.D. Wash.).
The lawsuit is a purported class action matter arising out of
unpaid overtime under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, unpaid wages
under the Washington Wage Rebate Act, and failure to provide meal
breaks. The Named Plaintiff was a registered nurse employed at
Renal Care Group, Inc. ("RCG"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. d/b/a/ Fresenius Medical Care
North America ("Fresenius") around the Spokane, Washington, and
Post Falls, Idaho, area from November 2016 until April 2023.
The Plaintiff contends that Fresenius incorporated in New York, and
maintains its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts. Likewise, she
asserts that RCG is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
headquarters in Waltham.
In her role as a registered nurse around Spokane and Post Falls,
the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees provided direct
patient care by administering and overseeing dialysis treatments.
During her employment with RCG, the Plaintiff alleges that she and
the class of similarly situated employees were misclassified as
independent contractors, and subject to deprivation of earned pay
and breaks.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to a
deduction in pay because RCG and Fresenius required employees to
work through their required unpaid thirty-minute meal break and did
not calculate that time into the hourly-pay employees received.
Additionally, she alleges that Defendants paid employees at
different rates depending on what kind of shift they worked, paying
them more if they worked during the COVID-19 pandemic, or in the
"Covid unit."
The Plaintiff alleges that paying shift differentials is a
violation of the Washington Wage Rebate Act because it deprives
employees of the statutorily required overtime rates. Additionally,
the Defendants excluded higher COVID pay rate into overtime pay
rate calculation. She asserts that she and similar situated
employees routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week during
the relevant three-year period and did not receive the requisite
overtime pay. She alleges that the Defendants would not take work
conducted during meal breaks into account when determining how many
hours an employee worked in a week, and therefore penalize
employees pay who worked "less" than 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff asserts that she and similar situated employees were
jointly employed by Fresenius and RCG, and that both entities were
aware of the Washington State laws asserted and proceeded to deny
employees' wages earned, overtime earned, and actual 30-minute
breaks.
The Defendant seeks dismissal of Fresenius, arguing that the
Plaintiff has not met her burden of providing facts that the
holding company was a joint employer of her, and thus, not liable
for the claims she lodged. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff
makes no allegation in her complaint regarding how Fresenius, as a
holding company, employed her or how it exerts the type of control
over and involvement in the daily activity of RCG.
In support of its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant points out that
the Plaintiff has not shown that Fresenius has ever fired or hired
any employee, held any trainings, been the listed entity on any
employee's paystub, prepared any employee's daily task or
assignment, promulgated any policies, maintained any employee's
records, or prepared any employee's work schedule. The Plaintiff
filed a response, setting forth the factors used to determine
whether an entity may be considered a "joint employer."
Defendant Fresenius moves to be dismissed from this matter because
it contends it is not a "joint employer" of the Plaintiff and,
thus, cannot be held liable under the Plaintiff's unpaid overtime
pay and unpaid wages claims.
As a general matter, a parent company and a subsidiary are
considered separate entities, and thus, a parent company may not be
held responsible for the liability created by its subsidiaries,
Judge Rice notes, citing United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51,
61 (1998).
Judge Rice finds that the Plaintiff does not explicitly argue that
RCG is an alter ego of Fresenius, nor does she provide the
requisite facts to suggest such.
In her complaint, the Plaintiff argues that Fresenius and RCG have
shared or common ownership of the facilities and clinics at which
Laughlin and the Putative Class Members work, that at all relevant
times, Fresenius and RCG jointly employed the patient care
employees, who work in Fresenius's healthcare facilities and
clinics through RCG, and that the Defendants jointly require her
and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty and perform
compensable work throughout their shifts, among other arguments.
These allegations are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
the alter ego test in demonstrating that Fresenius is dictating
every facet of RCG's daily activity, such that both entities are
one in the same, Judge Rice opines. Instead, these allegations make
sweeping allegations without any specificity as to how Fresenius is
involved in the daily activities of RCG.
Judge Rice also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
not satisfied her burden under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure regarding regulatory factors. The Plaintiff does
not draw a complete nexus from Fresenius to her employment at RCG.
The Plaintiff does not make her allegations with enough specificity
to survive the motion to dismiss standard, Judge Rice says. While
she need not conclusively establish that the Defendants were her
joint employers at the pleading stage, the Plaintiff must allege
some facts in support of this conclusion. Judge Rice points out
that the Plaintiff here has presented nothing that the Court can
use to draw an inference that as a holding company, Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc., is involved with RCG beyond the status
of a parent company such that either can be classified as a "joint
employer."
The Plaintiff requests the Court strike the declaration of Bryan
Mello from the record and not consider it as part of its decision
as it is beyond the pleadings. The Defendant requests that the
Court consider the declaration to rebut the claims made in the
complaint and support the fact that Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc., is an entity with no employees.
The Court finds that striking the declaration is proper at this
stage in the proceeding. The Defendant requests that the Court take
judicial notice of the content of the declaration speaks to
information that the Plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on
and the authenticity is not contested.
Further, Judge Rice finds that the declaration adds nothing to the
Defendant's motion. The Court likewise grants leave to reassert the
proposition made in Mr. Mello's declaration should it become
relevant in the future.
Taking the allegations in light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
the Court finds that she has not alleged sufficient facts to draw
an inference that Fresenius is a joint employer of the Plaintiff,
and thus, Defendant Fresenius' is granted dismissal from this
matter. However, the Court will freely grant leave to amend when
justice so requires.
Here, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend her pleadings
to factually clarify her claim that Fresenius is a joint employer,
and thus, may be held liable for claims of withheld wages, withheld
overtime pay, and violation of unpaid meal breaks.
Accordingly, Judge Rice holds that:
1. the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc., is granted;
2. the declaration given by Bryan Mello in support of the
Motion to Dismiss is stricken with leave to renew; and
3. the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint. She
may file an Amended Complaint with 14-days of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32pb2ske from PacerMonitor.com.
FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Shumacher Class Suit Due Dec. 15
----------------------------------------------------------
Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the motion of
defendants to dismiss Shumacher class suit is due December 15, 2023
and to be fully briefed by March 22, 2024.
On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company's
corporate "Up-C" structure and bringing direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and
directors.
On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action.
In response to defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022.
The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and
the Defendants again moved to dismiss on July 29, 2022.
On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and also moved for attorneys' fees.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on February 8,
2023; briefing on Plaintiff's fee application was completed on
April 6, 2023.
The Court heard oral argument on both motions on July 24, 2023.
On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al.
The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially
misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as
in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a
planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the
relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting
material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the
statements made therein not misleading.
The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys’ fees and costs.
On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, and on
October 29, 2023, the parties submitted a joint stipulated
scheduling order. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed October
19, 2023.
The amendment adds additional allegations by including accounts
from purported former employees and contractors.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of investors who
purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and
March 1, 2023.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is due December 15, 2023, and the
motion will be fully briefed by March 22, 2024.
Funko, Inc. is a toy manufacturer, with principal executive
offices
located at 2802 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, Washington. [BN]
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Berkelhammer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Berkelhammer class suit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda
v. Funko, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and certain other
defendants.
On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.
On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants.
The Company moved to dismiss the Complaint in the federal action,
now captioned Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al., on June 14, 2023.
Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 27, 2023, cross moving for an
order voluntarily dismissing the action without prejudice so that
he can pursue status as a class representative in In re Funko, Inc.
Securities Litigation, or in the alternative, a court order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss. Briefing completed on August 18,
2023.
On October 13, 2023, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion
for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, denied defendants'
motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action.
Funko, Inc. is a toy manufacturer, with principal executive
offices
located at 2802 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, Washington. [BN]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Narrows Claims in McMillian Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Georgette Castner of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled ALEMAH MCMILLIAN, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, and GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01671-GC-DEA (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
filed by Defendants GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General
Insurance Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, and
GEICO Casualty Company (collectively, "GEICO"). Plaintiff Alemah
McMillian opposed, and the Defendants replied.
The putative class action involves claims that GEICO has had a
policy of deceptively selling to New Jersey residents automobile
liability insurance policies that provide Personal Injury
Protection ("PIP") medical expense benefits less than $250,000
without obtaining the required affirmative written waivers mandated
by New Jersey law. Plaintiff McMillian seeks to compel GEICO to
provide her and similarly situated individuals with the $250,000
coverage, which insurers must provide in the absence of the proper
disclosures and affirmative waivers.
On July 23, 2015, McMillian, a resident of North Brunswick, New
Jersey, used GEICO's website to apply for and to obtain a standard
automobile liability insurance policy that provided maximum PIP
medical expense benefits of $15,000. She alleges that GEICO's
website presented her with the pre-selected $15,000 medical expense
benefits coverage and that at no time did she affirmatively select
or choose in writing this precise coverage limitation. She also
alleges that GEICO did not require her to submit a signed Coverage
Selection Form indicating her choice. She renewed her GEICO policy
eleven times "under the same conditions" as when she first
applied.
More than five years after obtaining insurance from GEICO,
McMillian was in a car accident on Feb. 16, 2021, that resulted in
medical expenses that have far exceeded her $15,000 PIP limit.
GEICO has refused to cover McMillian's medical bills more than
$15,000.
On Jan. 12, 2023, McMillian filed a Complaint against GEICO in the
Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County,
that asserts four counts: Count One for Violation of Statutory
Duties; Count Two for Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act ("NJ CFA"); Count Three for Breach of Contract; and Count Four
for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing. GEICO removed the action to federal court
on March 24, 2023, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the
Class Action Fairness Act.
Ms. McMillian sues on behalf of herself and a putative class
consisting of "[a]ll persons in the State of New Jersey who, from
January 12, 2017, through the present have been policyholders" of
"standard automobile liability insurance policies issued by a GEICO
entity that have provided limits of less than $250,000 in PIP
medical expense benefits coverage" and did "not have affirmative
choice in writing" as "proscribed by" New Jersey law as well as a
subclass consisting of "[a]ll persons in the [c]lass who suffered
injuries in a covered accident and incurred medical expenses in
excess of the medical expense PIP coverage stated in their
policy."
On March 31, 2023, GEICO moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). McMillian opposed on May 22, 2023, and GEICO replied on
June 13, 2023.
The Defendants argue that GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO
Casualty Company should be dismissed from this action because there
are no specific factual allegations as to those two entities and
McMillian purchased her automobile insurance policy from Government
Employees Insurance Company and the policy was later transferred to
GEICO Indemnity Company. In opposition, McMillian agrees to the
dismissal of GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty
Company without prejudice.
Accordingly, Judge Castner ruled that those two entities are
dismissed and the remaining Defendants in this action are
Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO Indemnity Company,
which will continue to be referred to together as either "GEICO" or
"Defendants."
The Defendants also argue, among other things, that the Complaint
should be dismissed in its entirety because McMillian's core
allegations -- related to how she applied for and purchased her
automobile insurance from GEICO -- are contradicted by documentary
evidence in GEICO's possession. Specifically, the Defendants submit
a Coverage Selection Form, dated July 23, 2015, electronically
signed by McMillian, which undermines and renders implausible,
according to the Defendants, the Plaintiff's claim that she never
received such a form and never affirmatively chose a $15,000 PIP
medical expense benefits coverage limitation.
Judge Castner notes that there is an evident dispute as to how the
discovery rule applies to the Plaintiff's claims and when the
claims began to run. The Defendants submit that the claims should
be deemed to have accrued when the Plaintiff purchased her
insurance policy, and she submits that the claims did not accrue
until after her accident when she discovered GEICO's alleged
fraud.
As even the Defendants acknowledge, both could potentially serve as
the relevant point in time, Judge Castner says. Because a time-bar
is not apparent on the face of the Complaint and because there is a
dispute as to how the discovery rule applies and when the claims
began to run, the Court is not in a position to dismiss the claims
under Rule 12(b)(6).
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, and other good cause
shown, Judge Castner holds that the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is granted in part and denied in
part.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2f2t7txu from PacerMonitor.com.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al.,
V. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to file exhibits under seal.
Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance,
mortgage insurance, and annuities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46cfKoV at no extra charge.[CC]
GEORGIA POWER CO: Continues to Defend Turnage Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Turnage class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
In 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a
putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and the
three then-serving members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which was
amended in March 2019 to include four additional plaintiffs.
Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base
pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper IGCC prior
to placing the Kemper IGCC into service.
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate.
The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the
amount approved, were improper and make claims for gross
negligence, reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing.
They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up
to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect
interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's
fees, and costs.
The district court dismissed the amended complaint; however, in
March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to name the new
members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi Development
Authority, and Southern Company as additional defendants and add a
cause of action against all defendants based on a dormant commerce
clause theory under the U.S. Constitution.
In July 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which included the same federal claims as
the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several
additional state law claims based on the allegation that
Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of
interest applicable to refunds.
In November 2020, the district court denied each of the plaintiffs'
pending motions and entered final judgment in favor of Mississippi
Power.
In January 2021, the district court denied further motions by the
plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second
amended complaint.
In February 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In March 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of the claims against the
Mississippi PSC defendants but reversing the dismissal of the
claims against Mississippi Power.
In May 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied
a petition by Mississippi Power for a rehearing en banc and
remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi for further proceedings.
In June 2022, Mississippi Power filed with the trial court a motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which was granted on March
15, 2023.
On March 28, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material impact
on Mississippi Power's financial statements.
Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in
Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.
GEORGIA POWER: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the
municipal franchise fees class suit was concluded on February 16,
2023 after the Georgia Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration.
In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims.
This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the
last several years.
In 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power
has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule.
In March 2021, the Superior Court of Fulton County granted class
certification and Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment and
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
In April 2021, Georgia Power filed a notice of cross appeal on the
issue of class certification.
In December 2021, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
Superior Court's ruling that granted summary judgment to Georgia
Power and dismissed Georgia Power's cross appeal on the issue of
class certification as moot.
Also in December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on
January 27, 2023.
On February 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on
February 16, 2023. This matter is now concluded.
Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in
Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.
GIGCAPITALACQUISITIONS LLC: Delman Sues Over Lightning Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lightning eMotors, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that a purported
stockholder of the company filed a putative class action complaint
in the Delaware Chancery Court, captioned "Delman v.
GigCapitalAcquisitions3, LLC, et al.," Case No. 2021-0679) on
behalf of a purported class of stockholders. The lawsuit names
GigCapitalAcquisitions3, LLC and the company's former directors as
defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duty stemming from GigCapitalAcquisitions3's merger with Lightning
Systems and unjust enrichment of certain of the defendants. The
lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption
rights, and attorneys; fees. Neither the company nor any of its
current officers or directors are parties to the lawsuit. The
company's former directors are subject to certain indemnification
obligations of the company. On January 4, 2023, the Delaware
Chancery Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Lightning eMotors, Inc. designs and manufactures zero-emission
vehicles and charging infrastructure solutions for commercial
fleets, large enterprises, original equipment manufacturers, and
governments.
GLEN MILLS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK, et al., v. GLEN
MILLS SCHOOLS, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01541-HB (E.D. Pa.), the
Defendants move the Court pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure
5.1.5 for an Order granting leave to file under seal:
(1) the unredacted Memorandum of Law in Support of the PDE
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and certain exhibits
attached thereto;
(2) the PDE Defendants' un-redacted Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
and
certain exhibits attached thereto; and
(3) the DHS Defendants' un-redacted Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and
certain exhibits attached thereto.
The Commonwealth Defendants reserve the right, at a future date and
subject to the terms of the Protective Order, to publicly file any
of the materials referenced above after redacting Confidential
Material or Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only material or
otherwise modifying the confidentiality designations of the
materials.
The Defendants include Theresa D. Miller, former Pennsylvania
Secretary of Human Services, Theodore Dallas, former Secretary of
Human Services, Cathy Utz, former Deputy Secretary for the
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services' Office of Children,
Youth, and Families, (collectively, "the DHS Defendants"), the
Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, and the Pennsylvania
Department of Education (collectively, "the PDE Defendants")
(together with the DHS Defendants, collectively "the Commonwealth
Defendants").
Glen Mills was a youth detention center for juvenile delinquents.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46WEUZA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., Esq.
Paul Lantieri III, Esq.
Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esq.
Joseph J. Bailey, Esq.
John W. Scott, Esq.
Kathryn J. Boyle, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Telephone: (215) 665-8500
Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement in Hodges Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS HODGES, et al., v.
GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
-- The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Class
satisfies
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for
settlement purposes only: the Settlement Class is comprised of
millions of individuals; there are questions of law or fact
common
to the Settlement Class; the Class Representatives’ claims
are
typical of those of Settlement Class Members; and the Class
Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the
interests
of the Settlement Class.
-- The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Class
satisfies
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
for
settlement purposes only: the questions of law or fact common
to
the Settlement Class predominate over individual questions; and
class action litigation is superior to other available methods
for
the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
-- The Court appoints Plaintiffs Thomas Hodges, HaleyRae Cannell,
Danielle Benedict, Christopher Britton, Xe Davis, and Emily
Hoza
as the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court
provisionally finds that the Class Representatives are
similarly
situated to absent Settlement Class Members and therefore
typical
of the Class and that they will be adequate Class
Representatives.
-- Deadline Defendant will Provide Nov. 14, 2023.
the Class List to the Settlement
Administrator:
-- Defendant to pre-fund Notice and Nov. 14, 2023
Admin. Costs:
-- Notice Date: Dec. 15, 2023
-- Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Jan. 29, 2024
Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Costs and Expenses:
-- Objection Deadline: Feb. 13, 2024
-- Opt-Out Date: Feb. 13, 2024
-- Claims Deadline: Feb. 13, 2024
-- Final Approval Hearing: March 7, 2024
-- Motion for Final Approval: Feb. 22, 2024
-- Payment of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, March 21, 2024
and Expenses:
-- Settlement Funding Payment: March 21, 2024
-- Claim Payments to Class Members: April 21, 2024
-- Deactivation of Settlement Website: Sept. 3, 2024
Goodrx is a provider of price comparison platforms that tracks
prescription drug prices and offers drug coupons.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Spby1Q at no extra charge.[CC]
GRAND CANYON: Continues to Defend HRS Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Hialeah City Retirement
System class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.
On May 12, 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by the City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System naming the Company, Brian E.
Mueller and Daniel E. Bachus as defendants for allegedly making
false and materially misleading statements regarding the
circumstances surrounding the Company’s sale of Grand Canyon
University (the "University") to a non-profit entity on July 1,
2018 and the subsequent decision of the U.S. Department of
Education to continue to treat the University as a for-profit
institution for education regulatory purposes (collectively, the
"Conversion").
The complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from
January 5, 2018, the date when the Company announced that it had
applied to the University's accreditor for approval of the
Conversion, to January 27, 2020, the date prior to the publication
of a short-seller report focused on the Conversion.
A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court by
Grant Walsh on June 12, 2020 making similar allegations against the
Company, Mr. Mueller and Mr. Bachus.
Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.
On August 13, 2020, the two cases were consolidated and the Fire
and Police Association of Colorado, the Oakland County Employees'
Retirement System and the Oakland County Voluntary Employees'
Beneficiary Association Trust were appointed as lead plaintiffs.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
on October 20, 2020 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
December 21, 2020.
On August 23, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in its entirety but permitted plaintiffs to file a further
amended complaint to correct deficiencies in the initial complaint.
The plaintiffs filed further amended complaints on September 28,
2021 and January 21, 2022, and the Company filed a further motion
to dismiss on March 15, 2022.
On March 28, 2023, the Company's motion to dismiss was denied.
The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
it intends to defend itself in this legal proceeding vigorously.
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education
services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities.
HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Flora Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 24, 2023, that the parties in a consolidated
securities actions await a decision from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on defendants' motion to
dismiss a second amended complaint.
On August 17, 2016, a securities class action complaint captioned
"Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al." was filed in the
Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, these complaints were
consolidated under the caption "In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation" and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon
Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
The co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action filed
a consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2017 and a corrected
consolidated amended complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017. It named as defendants the company and
certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results and internal
controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the District Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint on May 6, 2019. It again named as defendants the company
and certain of its former officers and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations similar to those in the amended complaint,
including materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results, and internal
controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 20, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss it in its entirety, with prejudice.
Co-lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision
dismissing it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit
vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings. On April 6, 2022, the District Court issued an
order directing the parties to submit position papers outlining
their views regarding: (a) the scope of the Court's reconsideration
of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint; and
(b) the appropriate procedure the court should follow in light of
the Second Circuit's opinion.
On April 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order setting the
schedule for, and determining the scope of, supplemental briefing
on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint. The
parties submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and
June 23, 2022. In June 2022, the District Court referred
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a
United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.
On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed objections to Magistrate Judge's
November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2022, and
Defendants filed their Opposition to plaintiffs' objections to
Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on
January 9, 2023.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. , a Delaware corporation
(collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, drug and convenience stores worldwide.
HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Lynn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 24, 2023, that the parties in a consolidated
securities actions await a decision from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on defendants' motion to
dismiss a second amended complaint.
On August 17, 2016, a securities class action complaint captioned
"Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al." was filed in the
Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, these complaints were
consolidated under the caption "In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation" and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon
Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
The co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action filed
a consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2017 and a corrected
consolidated amended complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017. It named as defendants the company and
certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results and internal
controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the District Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint on May 6, 2019. It again named as defendants the company
and certain of its former officers and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations similar to those in the amended complaint,
including materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results, and internal
controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 20, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss it in its entirety, with prejudice.
Co-lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision
dismissing it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit
vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings. On April 6, 2022, the District Court issued an
order directing the parties to submit position papers outlining
their views regarding: (a) the scope of the Court's reconsideration
of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint; and
(b) the appropriate procedure the court should follow in light of
the Second Circuit's opinion.
On April 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order setting the
schedule for, and determining the scope of, supplemental briefing
on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint. The
parties submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and
June 23, 2022. In June 2022, the District Court referred
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a
United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.
On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed objections to Magistrate Judge's
November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2022, and
Defendants filed their Opposition to plaintiffs' objections to
Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on
January 9, 2023.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. , a Delaware corporation
(collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, drug and convenience stores worldwide.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Fasteners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Harley-Davidson faces
a proposed class action lawsuit after more than 65,000 motorcycles
were recalled in August 2023 due to concerns that a fastener
securing the rear shock absorber could break.
The 26-page complaint, filed in South Carolina on October 30, says
more specifically that the recalled Harley motorcycles at issue are
equipped with a defectively designed rear shock absorber fastener
that can break and damage the rear tire, causing a loss of tire
pressure. A loss of tire pressure can cause a rider to lose control
of their motorcycle, "all but guaranteeing a crash," the lawsuit
says.
According to the suit, the defective Harley-Davidson Softail
motorcycles at issue, recalled by the company on August 29, include
the following models:
2018-2019 FLDE;
2018-2021 FLHC;
2018-2023 FLHCS;
2018 and 2023 FLHCS ANV;
2020-2023 FXLRS;
2022-2023 FXLRST; and
2022 FXRST.
The plaintiff, a Spartanburg, South Carolina resident whose 2022
FXLRS was included in Harley's 2023 recall, says he decided to buy
the bike because he believed it was a high-quality, reliable
motorcycle equipped with tech features that met his needs.
Per the case, the plaintiff spent roughly two hours researching the
apparent rear shock absorber fastener defect and possible fixes,
contacting Harley dealerships and repair centers in South Carolina
to inquire about potential remedies. The plaintiff was ultimately
told that the part required for replacement was out of stock, the
filing says.
"In sum, the Recall is unfixable at this point," the lawsuit
states. "Plaintiff is now stuck with a Class Motorcycle that is
liable to cause an accident and likely injure Plaintiff."
The complaint notes that the man has been "greatly inconvenienced"
by the Harley recall in that he has been forced to seek other modes
of transportation. Moreover, the case contends that the free
fix-and-repair clause included in the motorcycle maker's recall to
replace the faulty fastener will cost the plaintiff and other
Harley riders hours of their time.
"And, as noted earlier, the part required for repair is
unavailable," the filing relays.
The lawsuit argues that the 2023 Harley-Davidson recall does not
offer any "reasonably foreseeable" assurance that the fastener
defect will be fixed permanently.
"Rather, the Recall mentions installing a new shock absorber
fastener, but mentions no testing or assurances that the new
fastener will resolve the issue fully," the suit states, calling
the recall "especially burdensome" considering the inherent danger
of riding a motorcycle.
In all, the lawsuit says, Harley-Davidson's recall "amounts to time
and dollars needlessly taken from Plaintiff and other Class
Motorcycle owners."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) urges
affected riders to contact their Harley-Davidson dealer to schedule
an appointment to have their motorcycle's shock absorber fastener
replaced.
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who
bought or leased any of the Harley-Davidson motorcycles listed on
this page. [GN]
HARRIS TEETER: Faces Class Suit Over Oral Nasal Decongestants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ciara Lankford and Khalif Rhodes of Queen City News report that
Harris Teeter LLC is among several companies facing a class action
lawsuit in federal court in Maryland claiming they sold oral nasal
decongestants with phenylephrine that they knew did not work.
The lawsuit, filed in late October, includes Harris Teeter
Supermarkets, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., Kenvue Inc., Proctor &
Gamble Co., and Foundation Consumer BRands, LLC.
According to court documents, there were more than 250 different
phenylephrine-based decongestants accounting for 241.6 million
sales in 2022 for $1.7 billion.
The stores and companies continued to produce and sell the drug
despite knowing they were not effective when taken orally for nasal
decongestion, the lawsuit claims. [GN]
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the antitrust
class suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.
On October 6, 2023, a class action antitrust lawsuit was filed
against the Company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The lawsuit names several HII companies, among other companies, as
defendants.
The named plaintiffs generally allege that the defendant companies
have adhered to a "gentlemen's agreement" that prohibits any
defendant from actively recruiting naval engineers from other
defendants.
The complaint seeks class certification, treble damages, and any
other relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled.
Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, the Company could be
subject to penalties and damages that could have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
The Company has not had an opportunity to respond to the complaint
or engage in any discovery.
HII Corporate -- https://hii.com/ -- formerly Huntington Ingalls
Industries, Inc., is the largest military shipbuilding company in
the United States as well as a provider of professional services
to
partners in government and industry.[BN]
INTRUSION INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Intrusion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 14, 2023, that the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Texas approved a class action settlement
and plan of allocation on March 22, 2023. The lead plaintiff in the
class action filed a motion for distribution of settlement funds on
February 21, 2023.
On April 16, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division,
captioned "Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al.," Case No.
4:21-cv-00307 against the company, its now-former chief financial
officer, and now-former chief executive officer alleging, among
other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements or omissions about its business, operations, and
prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It claimed compensatory
damages and legal fees.
On November 23, 2021, the court consolidated the Celeste suit with
another action and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February
7, 2022. The amended complaint named the following additional
parties as named defendants: Mr. Michael Paxton, a former director
and executive officer; Mr. Gary Davis, a former officer; Mr. Joe
Head, the current chief technology officer, and a former director;
and Mr. James Gero, a current director and chair of the
compensation committee.
The parties to the consolidated action held a mediation on April 5,
2022, at the conclusion of which the parties executed a settlement
term sheet setting forth the material terms associated with the
resolution of the action, subject to the preparation of formal
documents and a plan of distribution approved by the Court. The
settlement agreement was subject to certain terms and conditions
and received final approval by the Court on December 16, 2022. At
that time, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case, with
the court retaining jurisdiction over the action for purposes of
enforcing the terms of the class settlement agreement. The $3.3
million settlement was paid by the company's insurance provider
under its insurance policy as the company's retention had
previously been exhausted.
Intrusion, Inc. develops, sells, and supports products that protect
any-sized company or government organization by fusing advanced
threat intelligence with real-time mitigation to kill cyberattacks
as they occur.
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Court") alleging that the Company and its former
Chief Executive Officer, Kevin M. King, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
("Securities Class Action Lawsuit").
On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021.
The amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to the
Company and Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael
J. Coyle, and former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief
Operating Officer, Douglas J. Devine.
The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class.
On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
the Court granted on March 31, 2022, entering judgment in favor of
the Company and the other defendants.
On April 29, 2022, the original named plaintiff appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On October 11, 2023, after briefing by the parties and oral
argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
The appellant has stated that he intends to file a petition for
rehearing en banc.
The Company believes the above securities class action lawsuit to
be without merit and plans to continue to defend itself
vigorously.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company
redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by
combining its wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data
analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.
JEFF SANDY: Rose Seeks Leave to Supplement Class Cert Record
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, et al.,
v. JEFF S. SANDY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Plaintiffs file motion for leave to supplement the record in
support of their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff contends that at the time the Motion for Class
Certification was filed, Plaintiffs did not have Exhibit Numbers 3,
4, 9, 10, and 12 in their possession as they were produced in
discovery by Defendants after the motion was filed.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QDocsz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen P. New, Esq.
Emilee B. Wooldridge, Esq.
STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES
430 Harper Park Drive
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 250-6017
Facsimile: (304) 250-6012
E-mail: steve@newlawoffice.com
- and -
Amanda J. Taylor, Esq.
TAYLOR, HINKLE & TAYLOR, INC.
115 1/2 South Kanawha Street
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 894-8733
Facsimile: (681) 245-6236
- and -
Timothy Lupardus, Esq.
THE LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE
275 Bearhole Road
Pineville, WV 24874
Telephone: (304) 732-0250
E-mail: office@luparduslaw.com
- and -
Zachary Whitten, Esq.
THE WHITTEN LAW OFFICE
Pineville, WV 24874
E-mail: zwhittenlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Robert Dunlap, Esq.
ROBERT DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES
208 Main Street
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 255-4762
E-mail: robertdunlapesq@gmail.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEMICAL TOXIN WORKING
GROUP INC. DBA HEALTHYLIVING FOUNDATION INC., On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order
amending the Scheduling Order as follows:
Event: Previous Deadline New Deadline:
Deadline for the parties Oct. 31, 2023 Jan. 31, 2024
to complete fact discovery
on issues relating to class
certification:
Deadline for plaintiff to Nov. 20, 2023 Feb. 20, 2024
file motion for class
certification and serve class
certification-related expert
reports:
Deadline for defendants to Jan. 19, 2023 Apr. 19, 2024
serve class certification-
related expert reports and
opposition to motion for
class certification:
Deadline for plaintiff to Mar. 19, 2024 Jun. 19, 2024
file reply in support of
class certification:
Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and
medical technologies corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47iiNwH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq.
OLIVER-ZHANG LAW, PLLC
810 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 643-1110
Facsimile: (202) 643-1596
E-mail: il1lie@oliverzhanglaw.com
- and -
Aida Poulsen, Esq.
Peter T. Sato, Esq.
POULSEN LAW P.C.
282 11th Avenue, Suite 2612
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (650) 296-1014
E-mail: ap@poulsenlaw.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony T. Pierce, Esq.
Miranda A. Dore, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
2001 K Street
NW Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 887-4000
E-mail: apierce@akingump.com
mdore@akingump.com
- and -
Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
Joshua Kipnees, Esq.
George Soussou, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
113 3 A venue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2110
E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
jkipnees@pbwt.com
gsoussou@pbwt.com
JSW STEEL: Seeks to Modify FLSA Collective in Polen Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON POLEN, v. JSW STEEL
USA OHIO, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00085-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), JSW
moves the Court to clarify or modify its October 18, 2023, Opinion
& Order regarding court facilitated notice.
JSW proposes that the putative FLSA collective be modified to be:
"All current and former Ohio hourly, non-exempt production
employees of Defendant who clocked in more than fifteen minutes
before a scheduled shift or who clocked out more than fifteen
minutes after a scheduled shift as the result of having
performed
work either prior to the scheduled start of their shift or after
the scheduled end of their shift for which they were not paid
during any workweek between December 8, 2019 and present in
which
they were paid for at least 40 hours."
Likewise, JSW requests that it only be required to provide
Plaintiff with:
"an electronic spreadsheet containing a roster of all
individuals
who clocked in more than fifteen minutes before a scheduled
shift
or who clocked out more than fifteen minutes after a scheduled
shift for which they were not paid overtime during any workweek
between August 1, 2019, and the present in which they were paid
for
at least 40 hours."
Without these modifications and given the identified limitations of
JSW's payroll records, the spreadsheet JSW would need to share with
Plaintiff would list all production employees who worked at least
one week of 40 scheduled hours during the multi-year time frame.
That list would include many persons who have no claim and no
genuine right to opt-in (assuming arguendo that Plaintiff's claim
has merit).
JSW Steel is in the business of manufacturing and distributing
steel products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTOduN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael A. Roberts, Esq.
Trial Attorney, Esq.
Alexandra M. Berry, Esq.
BRICKER GRAYDON LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 629-2799
Facsimile: (513) 333-4330
E-mail: mroberts@brickergraydon.com
aberry@brickergraydon.com
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on August 7, 2023, the
company entered into a term sheet with the plaintiffs in a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to settle in principle.
The term sheet is subject to approval by said court. The company
shall make cash consideration payments totaling $2,300,000 into an
escrow account. The plaintiffs subsequently sent a letter to the
Court on August 7, 2023, informing the court of the settlement in
principle and requesting that the court stay all proceedings
pending approval of the settlement.
On October 3, 2022, a Joseph Podmore alleged that the company and
certain current and former officers and directors of the company
for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 in connection with the purchase of common stock through
the company's public offering that closed on July 2, 2021.
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. and subsidiaries is a clinical stage fully
integrated biotherapeutics company formed under the Texas Business
Organizations Code in December 2012. It is an artificial
intelligence driven, end-to-end allogeneic cell therapy company,
currently developing multi-indication allogeneic T cell therapies
that exploit the natural potency of Gamma Delta T cells to target
solid tumors.
LASERSHIP INC: West Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WEST, et. al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
LASERSHIP, INC., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the Court Pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
a. Permitting this case to proceed as a collective action;
b. Approving their proposed collective action notice;
c. Compelling Defendant to disclose immediately the names and
last
known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of
each
individual who has worked as so-called subcontractor
delivery
driver for LaserShip from June 17, 2018 to the present;
d. Permitting Plaintiffs to post the proposed collective action
notice in common areas and break rooms at all of LaserShip's
New York locations;
e. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations beginning
September 17, 2021; and
Lasership provides courier services. The Company offers pickup and
delivery of letters, small packages, and documents.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45ZneLH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason Rozger, Esq.
MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 509-1616
E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com
- and -
William Li, Esq.
WILLIAM K LI LAW, PLLC
535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 380-8198
E-mail: wli@wlilaw.com
LEAGUE OF NATIONS: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia denies the Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit styled
ROZINA KIMANI MUTHOKA, Plaintiff v. LEAGUE OF NATIONS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02434-UNA (D.D.C.).
Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's pro se initiating
pleading, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
("IFP"). For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion, the
Court will deny the Plaintiff's IFP application and dismiss the
complaint.
The Plaintiff, who is currently designated the St. Louis County
Jail, has presented submissions that are difficult to follow, Judge
Cobb notes. Her initiating pleading is captioned as a "Remonstrance
of Remnants and Surplusese and Remit Unsent Escheat Tacit Remission
Adjust and an Act Entitled March 19, 1874, an Act to Audit and
Adjust the War Debt to the State."
But a plaintiff must open a civil matter by filing a civil
complaint, Judge Cobb says. The pleading also fails to comply with
the formal requirements of Federal Civil Rule 10(b) and D.C.
Local Civil Rule 5.1(d), (e), (g). The Plaintiff sues the League of
Nations, the United Nations, the United States, "all the several
states of the confederate," and the state of Missouri, and fails to
provide contact information for the Defendants, in contravention of
D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1).
Assuming that the Plaintiff intended her pleading to serve a
complaint, and generously construing it as such, Judge Cobb says
the contents fare no better. The complaint consists of a mix of
vague and unconnected allegations, non-sequiturs, and personal
anecdotes, all covering a range of topics.
The Plaintiff asks this Court "help adjust the war debt and remove
our estates bodies from being bounty of war indebtedness to this
foreign government who has us as an alien enemy," citing to a
litany of different laws, but she fails to make out a cognizable
claim under any of the authority cited.
A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions does
not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Judge Cobb opines, citing Cheeks v. Fort Myer
Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014). The instant
complaint falls within this category. As presented, neither the
Court nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify any
of the intended claims.
Furthermore, Judge Cobb explains, it appears that the Plaintiff is
attempting to proceed with this matter, at least in part, on behalf
of an estate and/or trust, and she indicates that she brings this
matter as a class action.
Judge Cobb opines that as an artificial entity, a trust cannot
proceed in federal court without licensed counsel. Also, a pro se
litigant cannot bring a class action. To that same end, the
Plaintiff has filed an IFP application, at least in part, on behalf
of a trust, however, an artificial entity cannot proceed under the
IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1).
Even if the Plaintiff intended to bring the IFP application only on
her own behalf, Judge Cobb finds that it is devoid of any of the
information or material necessary to assess her financial
circumstances, and fails to include her prison ledger sheets. For
these reasons, the IFP application must be denied.
For these reasons, Judge Cobb rules that this case is dismissed
without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 19,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zhwxwu8 from
PacerMonitor.com.
LEGACY HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to May 15, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANNE HUNTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LEGACY HEALTH, LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, LEGACY EMANUEL
HOSPITAL & HEALTH CENTER, LEGACY HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, RANDALL
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT LEGACY EMANUEL, Case No. 3:18-cv-02219-AR
(D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeff Armistead entered an order granting
joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows:
(1) Discovery related to certification of a class action and
decertification of any conditionally certified FLSA
collective
action due by March 28, 2024.
(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and Defendants'
Motion for Decertification of FLSA collective action are to
be
filed on or before May 15, 2024.
(3) Any oppositions to those motions are due six weeks after
the
respective moving papers are filed.
(4) Replies in support of their motions are due six weeks after
the
respective oppositions are filed.
Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system consisting of six
primary-care hospitals, a children's hospital, and allied clinics
and outpatient facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sfShVO at no extra charge.[CC]
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lightning eMotors, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that it is facing a
putative securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado since October 15, 2021, where the
company and certain of its officers were named as defendants.
Case captioned "Shafer v. Lightning eMotors, Inc., et al.," Case
No. 1:21-cv02774 alleges violations of Sections 10(b), Section
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for purported false or
misleading statements regarding the company's business operations
and financial condition.
On December 17, 2021, this was consolidated and on April 22, 2022,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff in the consolidated lawsuit.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2022.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other remedies.
Lightning eMotors, Inc. designs and manufactures zero-emission
vehicles and charging infrastructure solutions for commercial
fleets, large enterprises, original equipment manufacturers, and
governments.
alleges violations of Sections 10(b), Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder for purported false or misleading statements
regarding the company's business operations and financial
condition.
On December 17, 2021, this was consolidated and on April 22, 2022,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff in the consolidated lawsuit.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2022.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other remedies.
Lightning eMotors, Inc. designs and manufactures zero-emission
vehicles and charging infrastructure solutions for commercial
fleets, large enterprises, original equipment manufacturers, and
governments.
LYFT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $38M Over Wage Theft
------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Shepherd of SHRM reports that rideshare companies Uber and
Lyft will pay a combined $328 million to settle wage theft claims
in New York, state Attorney General Letitia James announced on Nov.
2.
Uber will pay $290 million, and Lyft will pay $38 million into two
separate settlement funds that will be distributed to current and
former drivers.
The settlements will institute a minimum earnings floor, paid sick
leave, proper hiring and earnings notices, and other improvements
in drivers' working conditions, James said.
From 2014 to 2017, Uber deducted sales taxes and Black Car Fund
fees from drivers' payments when those taxes and fees should have
been paid by passengers, James said. The Black Car Fund is a
nonprofit organization created by New York State to protect
for-hire drivers and passengers. It provides safety and health
programs and workers' compensation insurance to black car and
limousine drivers.
Uber misrepresented the deductions made to drivers' pay in their
terms of service, telling drivers that Uber would only deduct its
commission from the drivers' fares, and that drivers were entitled
to charge the passenger for any tolls, taxes or fees incurred,
although no method to do so was provided via the Uber Driver app,
James said.
Lyft employed a similar method to shortchange drivers from 2015 to
2017, deducting a 11.4 percent administrative charge from drivers'
payments in New York equal to the amount of sales tax and Black Car
Fund fees that should have been paid by passengers. Uber and Lyft
also failed to provide drivers with paid sick leave guaranteed to
workers under New York City and New York state law, James said.
With the settlements, drivers will earn one hour of sick pay for
every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 56 hours per year, James
said.
"We are thrilled that our members won this historic victory to
recover their stolen income," said Bhairavi Desai, executive
director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a Long Island City,
N.Y.-based union for drivers.
"The agreement is a win for drivers across New York State who can
now enjoy both the flexibility that is so important to them, while
also having new benefits and protections like a minimum earnings
standard and paid sick leave," Tony West, Uber's chief legal
officer, said in a press release. "This helps put to rest the
classification issue in New York and moves us forward with a model
that reflects the way people are increasingly choosing to work."
In a statement, Lyft said, "The agreement prioritizes the benefits
drivers want without sacrificing the independence and flexibility
they need."
We've collected a group of articles on the news from SHRM Online
and other trusted sources.
Minimum Wage
New York City was the first city in the country to establish a
minimum wage for app-based drivers, who have been classified as
independent contractors. The city also implemented a minimum wage
for app-based food delivery services, such as Uber Eats.
Uber and Lyft drivers in New York City receive a $17.96 per hour
minimum wage under regulations established by the city's Taxi &
Limousine Commission in 2019. Under the new settlements, Uber and
Lyft drivers outside of New York City will receive a minimum of $26
per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, James said.
Drivers Continue to Be Classified as Independent Contractors
More than 100,000 current and former drivers in the state are
eligible to benefit from the settlements.
The settlement ends James' probe into Uber's and Lyft's
classification of drivers as independent contractors instead of
employees, a practice both companies regularly defend in lawsuits,
when dealing with legislators, and at the ballot box.
Uber and Lyft, both based in San Francisco, denied wrongdoing. The
settlements equal a little under 1 percent of Uber's and Lyft's
annual revenue.
In a separate settlement, Uber recently agreed with the New York
State Department of Labor to begin making quarterly payments to a
state insurance fund to ensure that unemployed drivers receive
benefits.
California Drivers Remain Independent Contractors
Ride-hailing and delivery companies can continue to treat their
California drivers as independent contractors, a state appeals
court ruled on March 13. The court mostly upheld the state's
Proposition 22, which said ride-hailing businesses could legally
classify their drivers as independent contractors, rather than
employees. In general, independent contractors aren't entitled to
the benefit plans and legal protections that employees receive.
Settlement in California
In 2022, Uber agreed to pay $8.4 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit with California drivers who claimed they were misclassified
as independent contractors, rather than employees.
The settlement applies to drivers who used the Uber Rides App in
California between Feb. 28, 2019, and Dec. 16, 2020, or who used
the Uber Eats App in California between June 28, 2016, and Oct. 7,
2021, and who opted out of Uber's arbitration agreement. It does
not reclassify drivers as employees.
Uber, headquartered in San Francisco, has about 1 million U.S.
drivers and about 29,000 employees worldwide.
Action In Other States
Drivers in New York City, Seattle and California all have minimum
wage guarantees. Uber and Lyft successfully blocked minimum wage
laws for gig workers in Minnesota, and driver advocates are pushing
for reforms in Chicago, as well.
Based on the New York settlements, Uber and Lyft will update their
apps to allow drivers to request sick leave through the apps. [GN]
MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Video Hearing on Notice Set for Dec. 5
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS BRIXEY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED;
JENIFFER LOPEZ, MADISON HALL, BAILEY ALFORD, ALEC SEEHAUSEN, LAUREN
THOMPSON, CAIDEN LONGORIA, ALEXANDRA KOPP, ALEXANDER NICKERSON,
RYEN WESCOTT, AUSTIN CONRAD, EMILEE OVERFIELD, MEG KEAVUTZ, KURT R.
MCDANIEL, ZACHARY ELLIOT, v. MCADOO'S SEAFOOD COMPANY, LLC, WIGGINS
HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00232-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney entered an order that the
Plaintiffs' motion for Court-Authorized Notice is set for a
videoconference hearing at 10:30 a.m. on December 5, 2023.
-- Counsel for all parties are required to appear by Zoom for the
hearing. The information to join the hearing is as follows:
Join ZoomGov Meeting:
https://txwd-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/16126729723 Meeting ID: 161
2672 9723
If there are questions regarding the Zoom appearance, the parties
should contact Judge Chestney's Courtroom Deputy by emailing
txwdml_chambers_sa_judgechestney@txwd.uscourts.gov.
McAdoo's is a restaurant serving Texas Creole favorites, authentic
Cajun specialties and fresh seafood.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QGiaat at no extra charge.[CC]
MCKESSON CORP: Appellate Court Ok'd TCPA Class Decertification Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Klein of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP reports that on October 25,
2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued its decision in True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson
Corp., finding that the lower court: 1) had correctly determined
that Defendants violated the TCPA's junk fax prohibition; 2) had
properly decertified the proposed class; and 3) did not abuse its
discretion in denying treble damages to Plaintiffs.
As our readers are aware, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, forbids the
sending of a fax advertisement "to any person without that person's
prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise."
The Ninth Circuit found that Defendants had violated the TCPA's
junk fax prohibition by failing to obtain adequate consent to
deliver the subject fax advertisements to Plaintiffs. More
importantly, however, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Defendants'
violations only applied to Plaintiffs in their individual
capacities. As such, because the TCPA awards $500 non-treble
damages per violation, the Ninth Circuit's decision all but assured
Defendants that they would not be liable for more than $2,000 (4
total alleged unsolicited faxes), before costs and fees.
Why Did the Court Uphold Class Decertification?
In upholding the district court's decision to decertify Plaintiffs'
proposed class, the Court determined that it was bound by the
Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or the "Commission")
Amerifactors declaratory ruling. In Amerifactors, the FCC
determined that the TCPA does not apply to faxes received through
an online fax delivery service. Considering that traditional fax
machines are rarely used anymore, the Amerifactors ruling served to
effectively bar the lawsuit from proceeding as a class action.
In their appeal, Plaintiffs argued that Amerifactors was "neither
an order of the Commission, nor final." Plaintiffs claimed that
Amerifactors was not an order of the FCC because it was issued by
the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (the "Bureau")
and not the entire Commission. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argued, it
did not carry the full force of an order of the Commission. The
Court ruled, however, that rulings issued on authority delegated by
the FCC carry the same weight as if issued by the FCC itself.
Amerifactors made clear that an online fax service is not a
"telephone facsimile machine" and, thus, falls outside the consumer
protections afforded by the TCPA's Junk Fax Protection Act. As a
final order of the FCC, Amerifactors is only reviewable by federal
courts of appeal. Accordingly, the ruling was binding on the
district court, thereby obligating it to grant summary judgment to
Defendants on any class claims arising from the receipt of an
online fax.
Because Plaintiffs could not propose a method for distinguishing
class members who had received faxes on a stand-alone fax machine
from those who had received faxes through an online service,
Plaintiffs' claims were rightfully restricted to proceed on an
individual, rather than a class wide, basis.
Why does McKesson Matter to your Business?
Although not as prevalent on November 2, 2023, faxes are still sent
business-to-business. Traditional fax machines use "ink, toner, or
paper, or otherwise . . . money" to print out an incoming fax.
Unsolicited faxes that arrive on a traditional fax machine cause
tangible harms seemingly deserving of the FCC's protection. A
majority of modern faxes, however, are transmitted through online
fax services, appearing as an attachment to an email in the
recipient's inbox. It follows that the FCC would issue a
declaratory ruling determining that an online fax service falls
outside the protections afforded by the TCPA's junk fax
prohibition. Because there is no cap on damages under the TCPA,
McKesson is a major decision for businesses engaged in online fax
marketing.
Still, any business that engages in fax marketing opens itself to
possible TCPA claims. Marketers should always utilize the safest
approach, which is to obtain prior express consent from recipients
before sending a marketing piece via facsimile transmission. The
attorneys at Klein Moynihan Turco have decades of experience in
defending companies that face unsolicited telemarketing claims. If
you are interested in working with a law firm that has an extensive
track record in the telemarketing field, please email us at
info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.
The material contained herein is provided for information purposes
only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining
legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you
should not act or rely on any information contained herein without
seeking the advice of an experienced attorney. [GN]
MCLAREN HEALTH: E.D. Michigan Prohibits Filings in Norwood Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JANISE NORWOOD, Plaintiff v. McLAREN HEALTH
CARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12553-MFL-CI (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an order
prohibiting filings in this action until further order of the
Court.
On Oct. 10, 2023, Plaintiff Janise Norwood filed this putative
class action against Defendant McLaren Health Care Corporation.
Judge Leitman says once McLaren appears in this action, the Court
intends to hold a status conference to discuss next steps in this
case. Until the Court holds that status conference, and until
further order of the Court, there will be no filings in this action
other than attorney appearances. In other words, McLaren need not
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint prior to the status
conference. Counsel for Norwood will serve the Complaint and this
order on McLaren as soon as is practicable.
Once counsel for McLaren appears in this action, the Court will
schedule a status conference at a time mutually convenient for all
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/38b4s7cp from PacerMonitor.com.
MDL 2818: Class Cert Bid in Air Conditioning Suit in Abeyance
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as General Motors Corp Air
Conditioning Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No.
2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman
entered an order holding the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in abeyance.
In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that the air conditioning
systems in certain vehicles sold by Defendant General Motors
Company are defective and that GM's efforts to repair the air
conditioning systems have failed.
On March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In support of their class certification motion,
Plaintiffs cited as supplemental authority two recent decisions
from district courts in this circuit granting motions for class
certification in automotive defect cases: Speerly v. General
Motors, 2023 WL 2572457 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2023) and In re Nissan
North America, Inc. Litigation, 2023 WL 2749161 (M.D. Tenn. Mar.
31, 2023).
On October 23 and 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit agreed to consider, on an interlocutory basis,
appeals from the class certification rulings in both Speerly and In
re Nissan North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SpbfEe at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Robinson Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robinson, et al., v.
Family Dollar, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02182 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order that:
1. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject
matter
of the Action, all Parties to the Action, and the Settlement
Class.
2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Substitute and Dismiss
Certain Class Representatives is granted.
3. The Settlement is conditionally approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final
Settlement Fairness Hearing.
4. The Plaintiffs Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Beverly Gordon,
Julian
Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Soyna Mull, Vinnie
Smith,
Sandra Walker, and Jerome Whitney are conditionally approved
as
Class Representatives.
5. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Sarah Sterling Aldridge, and Charles
J.
LaDuca are approved as Class Counsel, and the Court finds
that
Class Counsel has and will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Class.
6. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court conditionally certifies the
following Class for purposes of this Settlement only, and
subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement
Fairness Hearing:
a. All persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama,
Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and, from January 1,
2020, through February 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any
product from an Affected Family Dollar Store.
b. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants;
(ii)
Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors,
directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and
wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of
Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys
who
represent Settlement Class Representatives or the
Settlement
Class in this Action, as well as their agents and
employees;
(iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to
this
case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v)
Persons who timely request to be excluded from this
Settlement as provided in Paragraph 9.
7. If the Settlement Agreement does not receive the Court's
final
approval, if final approval is reversed on appeal, or if the
Settlement Agreement is terminated or otherwise fails to
become
effective, the Court’s grant of conditional class
certification
of the Settlement Class shall be vacated, the Parties shall
revert to their positions in the Action as they existed on
April
18, 2023, and the Settlement Class Representatives and the
Settlement Class Members will once again bear the burden to
prove the propriety of class certification and the merits of
their claims at trial.
8. Settlement Class Members will have sixty calendar days from
the
Notice Date to submit their Claim Forms.
9. The Final Settlement Fairness Hearing shall be held by the
Court
on Friday, April 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
On July 18, 2023, the State of Arkansas filed a Motion to
Intervene, arguing that the Plaintiffs' class-action Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ATDPA") claims are prohibited by
Arkansas law.
The Robinson Suit is consolidated in MDL 3032 Family Dollar Stores,
Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation.
Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SDHOOT at no extra charge.[CC]
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mesoblast Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 31, 2023, that a class action proceeding in
the Federal Court of Australia was served on the company in May
2022 by the law firm William Roberts Lawyers on behalf of persons
who, between February 22, 2018, and December 17, 2020, acquired an
interest in Mesoblast shares, American Depository Receipts, and/or
related equity swap arrangements.
In June 2022, the firm Phi Finney McDonald commenced a second
shareholder class action against the company in the Federal Court
of Australia asserting similar claims arising during the same
period. Like the class action lawsuit from October 2020 filed in
the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of New
York (which had court approval for settlement in August 2022), the
Australian class actions relate to the Complete Response Letter
released by the FDA in relation to its GvHD product candidate; they
also relate to certain representations made by the Company in
relation to our COVID-19 product candidate and the decline in the
market price of our ordinary shares in December 2020. The
Australian class actions have been consolidated into one lawsuit.
Mesoblast Limited is primarily engaged in the development of
regenerative medicine products with its primary proprietary
regenerative medicine technology platform based on specialized
cells known as mesenchymal lineage cells.
MITEK SYSTEMS: BIPA Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------
Mitek Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois dismissed the Biometric
Information Privacy Act class suit without prejudice on September
14, 2023.
On December 16, 2021, the Company was sued in a putative class
action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging that
the Company had violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA") with respect to identity verification services that
the Company provided to its customer HyreCar, Inc. ("HyreCar") for
HyreCar's customers in Illinois (the "BIPA Lawsuit").
Plaintiff claimed that the Company had not obtained the required
consent to collect and use Plaintiff's biometric information, and
that Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals
therefore are entitled to statutory damages under BIPA.
The Company removed the BIPA Lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, and on March 4, 2022 the Company
filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration based on HyreCar's terms and
conditions requiring HyreCar customers to arbitrate on an
individual (non-class) basis (the "Arbitration Motion").
On May 4, 2022 the trial court denied the Arbitration Motion.
On December 21, 2022, the trial court's ruling was upheld on
appeal, and the case subsequently was remanded back to the trial
court.
On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding a
second named plaintiff, who is also a HyreCar end-user, but
otherwise not materially changing the allegations.
On March 27, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations.
On May 11, 2023, and after the Company’s Motion to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations had been fully
briefed, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint seeking to add two new named plaintiffs, who are
end-users of Mitek customers Instacart and Roadie, and to remove
one named plaintiff.
The Company opposed the Motion for Leave.
On September 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal.
On September 14, 2023, the Court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice, ending the litigation.
Mitek Systems, Inc. -- https://www.miteksystems.com/ -- is a
software company that specializes in digital identity verification
and mobile capture built on artificial intelligence
algorithms.[BN]
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Catherine Cole, Barbara
Koostra, Mary-Ann Sontag Bowman, Rhondie Voorhees, Courtney
Babcock, Laura Berkhouse, Ruth Ann Burgad, Jane Doe 1, Jennifer
Cooper, Cindy Ferguson, Frieda Houser, Sherrie Lindbo, Jennifer
McNulty, Jane Doe 2, Vida Wilkinson, and Vandi Theriot,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Montana University System, University of Montana-Missoula, and John
Doe Defendants 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
for the parties to file their motions regarding class
certification, with supporting briefs, for a period of 2-days, from
November 1, 2023, to November 3, 2023, given the extensive nature
of these filings.
Montana University System is the state's system of public colleges
and universities.
A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Spjq3c at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary P. Carls, Esq.
CARLS LAW, PLLC
322 West Mendenhall, P.O. Box 85
Bozeman, MT 59771
Telephone: (406) 577-2145
Facsimile: (406) 219-0256
E-mail: hillary@carlslaw.com
- and –
Veronica A. Procter, Esq.
PROCTER LAW, PLLC
2718 Montana Avenue, Suite 200
Billings, MT 59101
Telephone: (406) 294-8915
Facsimile: (406) 302-0504
E-mail: vp@procterlawfirm.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cochran Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDERA COCHRAN, individually and on behalf on of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a Mr.
Cooper, d/b/a Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC d/b/a Right Path
Servicing, Defendant, Case No: 0:23-cv-62076 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1,
2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers
mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan,
re-financing, and home equity loans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Young Kim, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEYS
2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 270
Clearwater, FL 33762
Telephone: (877) 241-2200
Email: ykim@consumerlawattorneys.com
federalservice@consumerlawattorneys.com
- and -
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Continued by 45 Days
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN HERNANDEZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NEOVIA LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; NEOVIA LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION, LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
5:23-cv-01221-PA-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson
entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue deadline
for the Plaintiff to file motion for class Certification by 45
days.
-- The Court modifies in part the Court's August 2, 2023, Civil
Minutes – General and directs the Plaintiff to file his
motion
for class certification, consistent with Local Rule 6, with a
hearing date no later than January 29, 2024.
Neovia offers inventory management, warehousing, and manufacturing
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FITaZY at no extra charge.[CC]
NEVADA: Williams Must File Signed 1st Amended Complaint by Dec. 26
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
Nevada Attorney General, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00510-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada directs
Plaintiff Williams to file a signed first amended complaint on or
before Dec. 26, 2023.
On Oct. 19, 2023, Plaintiffs Thomas Williams, Joey Keaton, and
Haywood Wilson, inmates at Washoe County Detention Facility,
submitted a pro se civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 that seeks to bring a class action on behalf of African
American pretrial detainees at the facility. But the Court cannot
consider the complaint because no Plaintiff personally signed it.
And this action cannot otherwise proceed because the Plaintiffs
have neither paid the full $402 filing fee nor applied to proceed
in forma pauperis.
According to Judge Denney, litigants, who are not represented by
counsel, are pro se and have the right to plead and conduct their
own cases personally. But pro se litigants have no authority to
represent anyone other than themselves. This means pro se litigants
cannot seek to certify a case as a class action themselves; they
must be represented by counsel. But there is no right to appointed
counsel in civil-rights actions. And the Court will appoint counsel
for indigent civil litigants only in "exceptional circumstances."
Moreover, the Court must collect filing fees from parties
initiating civil actions. The fee for filing a civil-rights action
is $402, which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52
administrative fee.
For an inmate to apply for in forma pauperis status, the inmate
must submit all three of the following documents to the Court: (1)
a completed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for Inmate,
which is pages 1–3 of the Court's approved form, that is properly
signed by the inmate twice on page 3; (2) a completed Financial
Certificate, which is page 4 of the Court's approved form, that is
properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official;
and (3) a copy of the inmate's prison or jail trust fund account
statement for the previous six-month period.
The Court will grant each Plaintiff an opportunity to file a signed
complaint and either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. But only
Plaintiff Thomas Williams is permitted to proceed in this action
currently, Judge Denney says. If any other Plaintiff wishes to
proceed with his claims, he must file a signed complaint with the
Court, under a new case number, and either pay the full $402 filing
fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis.
For these reasons, Judge Denney orders Plaintiff Thomas L. Williams
to submit a signed first amended complaint to the Court on or
before Dec. 26, 2023. If Plaintiff Thomas Williams chooses to file
an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint
replaces the original complaint, so the amended complaint must be
complete in itself. This means the amended complaint must contain
all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff
Thomas Williams wishes to pursue in this action. Thus, the
submission of a mere signature page will not be enough.
Moreover, Judge Denney holds that the Plaintiff should file the
amended complaint on the Court's approved civil-rights form, and it
must be titled "First Amended Complaint." On or before Dec. 26,
2023, Plaintiff Thomas Williams will either pay the full $402
filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis with all three required documents: a completed application
with the inmate's two signatures on page 3, a completed financial
certificate that is signed both by the inmate and the prison or
jail official, and a copy of the inmate's trust fund account
statement for the previous six-month period.
Judge Denney rules that Plaintiffs Joey Keaton and Haywood Wilson
are dismissed without prejudice from this action. Plaintiff Thomas
Williams is cautioned that this action will be subject to dismissal
without prejudice if he fails to timely comply with this order. A
dismissal without prejudice allows the Plaintiff to refile the case
with the Court, under a new case number, when he can file a signed
complaint and either pay the required filing fee or apply for in
forma pauperis status.
If either Joey Keaton or Haywood Wilson wishes to proceed with his
claims, Judge Denney says each inmate must file his own complaint
with the Court, under a new case number, and either pay the full
$402 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in
forma pauperis.
The Clerk of the Court will send Plaintiff Thomas Williams, Joey
Keaton, and Haywood Wilson each the approved form for filing a 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint and instructions for the same, the
approved form application to proceed in forma pauperis for an
inmate and instructions for the same, a copy of the original
complaint, and General Order No. 2021-05.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrx3v4n8 from PacerMonitor.com.
NEW BRUNSWICK, CA: Court OKs $17M Deal in Sexual Assault Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that a settlement has been
approved in a class action lawsuit against the Province of New
Brunswick and Vitalite Health Network on behalf of former residents
of the Restigouche Hospital Centre ("RHC") in Campbellton, New
Brunswick.
The settlement provides a $17 million fund for financial
compensation to Class Members who allege they suffered certain
harms at RHC. On October 26, 2023, the Court approved the
settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
Class.
Class Members are now able to submit a claim for compensation for
certain harms they allege they suffered while living at RHC. The
potential amount of money to be paid to a Class Member whose claim
is accepted will likely range between $1,000 and $85,000, depending
on the type of claim they make.
All claim forms must be submitted by October 26, 2024. Claims will
be assessed by an independent Administrator, in a paper-based
claims process. Class Members will be able to claim compensation
without ever having to go to Court.
The "Class" in this class action includes all individuals who were
admitted or resided at RHC from May 24, 2004 to October 1, 2021,
and who were alive as of May 24, 2017. The Class also includes
individuals who resided at RHC from January 1, 1954 to October 1,
2021, who were alive as of May 24, 2017, and who claim they were
sexually assaulted.
For more information about making a claim, please visit
https://restigouchehospitalcentreclassaction.com/ or contact the
Claims Administrator at 1-866-476-3107, or by email to
info@RestigoucheHospitalCentreClassAction.ca.
The lawyers who are representing the Class Members are Koskie
Minsky LLP. You may also contact Koskie Minsky LLP by email at
restigoucheclassaction@kmlaw.ca, or by calling the toll-free number
1-888-233-2852. [GN]
NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Suit Over New-Born Screening Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan King of Institute of Justice reports that on November 2, 2023,
a group of New Jersey parents teamed up with the Institute for
Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's
practice of keeping blood samples taken from newborn babies for 23
years, all without parents' knowledge or consent. Not only does New
Jersey hold onto the blood, it can use the blood samples in any
manner it chooses.
When babies are born in New Jersey, state law requires that blood
be taken from the newborns and tested for diseases such as cystic
fibrosis, hormonal deficiencies, and other immunity issues. All
states perform similar tests.
But, after the testing is over, New Jersey's Department of Health
keeps the leftover blood for 23 years. The state does not ask
parents for their consent to keep their babies' blood, failing to
even inform parents that it will hold on to the residual blood. The
only way parents could learn about such retention is by proactively
looking it up on one of the third-party websites listed on the
bottom of the card they're given after the blood draw. And, once
the state has the blood, it can use it however it wishes, including
selling it to third parties, giving it to police without a warrant,
or even selling it to the Pentagon to create a registry—as
previously happened in Texas.
"Parents have a right to informed consent if the state wants to
keep their children's blood for decades and use it for purposes
other than screening for diseases," said IJ Senior Attorney Rob
Frommer. "New Jersey's policy of storing baby blood and DNA and
using that genetic information however it wants is a clear
violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of all New Jersey parents
and their newborns."
The plaintiffs challenging this law are two Boonton parents, Erica
and Jeremiah Jedynak, and Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, a Cranbury mother
of two.
"It's not right that the state can enter an incredibly intimate
moment, the tender days of childbirth, and take something from our
children which is then held on to for 23 years," said Hannah. "The
lack of consent and transparency causes me to question the intent
and makes me worried for my children's future selves."
"As a mother, I deserve the right to decide whether or not the
government takes blood from my son and holds onto it for decades
past its claimed use."
Although all 50 states and the District of Columbia require blood
screening for newborns, whether a state will destroy leftover
newborn blood, return it, or keep it with a form of parental
consent varies on a state-by-state basis.
"What makes New Jersey's program so uniquely disturbing is the
complete lack of safeguards for future abuse and the lack of
consent, which leave the program ripe for abuse," said IJ Attorney
Christie Hebert. "Parents should not have to worry if the state is
going to use the blood it said it was taking from their baby to
test for diseases for other, unrelated purposes."
New Jersey is not alone in facing legal issues for the lack of
consent when obtaining blood and over what the state does with the
blood. Texas, Minnesota, and Michigan have all faced lawsuits over
their retention of blood samples without informed consent from the
parents. The 2009 lawsuit in Texas resulted in the state destroying
5.3 million blood samples, and now, all blood samples obtained
after 2012 must be destroyed after two years. A 2014 settlement in
the Minnesota lawsuit resulted in 1.1 million blood samples being
destroyed. In 2022, Michigan agreed to destroy 3 million blood
spots, but that lawsuit continues to move forward.
"It's incredibly misleading for the state to tell parents they are
simply drawing blood from their babies to test for diseases when it
could be sold to third parties or used by other government agencies
to build invasive databases or registries," said IJ Attorney Brian
Morris. "As Texas and other states have shown, these concerns
aren't hypothetical."
Through its Project on the Fourth Amendment, IJ defends the rights
of Americans to be secure in their persons and properties against
unreasonable searches and seizures. Following IJ's lawsuit, an Iowa
court recently declared an Orange City, Iowa, law that required
warrantless inspections of all rental properties unconstitutional,
and IJ is continuing to defend that victory on appeal. IJ is
currently suing game wardens in Virginia after they snuck onto a
family's private property and stole cameras. IJ recently argued
before the Michigan Supreme Court, challenging a town's warrantless
use of surveillance drones to look for code violations on private
property. [GN]
NORTHERN GENESIS: Schachter Sues Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
AHUVA SCHACHTER; MICHAEL SMITH; DOUGLAS NEUJAHR; SAMHITA GERA; and
DENISH BHAVSAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHERN GENESIS SPONSOR, LLC; IAN
ROBERTSON; KEN MANGET; CHRISTOPHER JARRATT; MICHAEL HOFFMAN; PAUL
DALGLISH; BRAD SPARKES; and ROBERT SCHAEFER, Defendants, Case No.
2023-1112 (Del. Ch., Nov. 1, 2023) seeks monetary and rescissory
damages against the Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duty
owed to stockholders of Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp.
stockholders arising out of the deprivation of the Plaintiffs'
right to make a fully informed decision about whether to redeem
their NGA shares or to invest in the Merger.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and the Class by
prioritizing their own personal, financial, and reputational
interests above those of NGA's stockholders. The Defendants also
breached their fiduciary duty by approving the unfair Merger and by
failing to inform stockholders of the material information
necessary to allow them to make an informed redemption decision.
The Merger was the result of an unfair process and was completed at
an unfair price. Among other things, the Defendants' actions
impaired stockholders' ability to exercise their redemption rights
on a fully informed basis. Lion Electric's share price has remained
low. On October 31, 2023, it closed at $1.57 per share, the suit
alleges.
NORTHERN GENESIS SPONSOR, LLC operates as a capital pool company.
The Company focuses on the identification and evaluation of
businesses and assets with a view to completing a qualifying
transaction. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 S. Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
- and -
David Wissbroecker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
2325 3rd Street, Suite 329
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Nelnet's Bid to Dismiss Carr Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David L. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit styled KATHLEEN CARR,
individually and on Behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. OKLAHOMA STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY; and NELNET SERVICING,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00099-R (W.D. Okla.).
Before the Court is Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs filed a Response, and the
Defendants, thereafter, filed a Reply.
Plaintiffs Carr, Killory and Powell bring this case individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated regarding a data breach
related to student loan services they received from Defendants
Oklahoma Student Loan Authority ("OSLA") and Nelnet Servicing, LLC.
They allege their personally identifiable information ("PII") was
obtained by malicious actors in 2022 via a data breach of Nelnet's
technology platform. The exposed PII included their names,
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security
numbers.
The Plaintiffs claim both Defendants, Nelnet and OSLA, acted
negligently in protecting the PII they had been provided.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim OSLA committed torts of
negligence, negligence per se, and negligent training, hiring, and
supervision of Nelnet. The Plaintiffs bring additional claims
against OSLA for an invasion of their privacy. Defendant OSLA moves
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' lawsuit for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiffs bring six claims against Nelnet. Two sound in
negligence, and the Court denies Nelnet's motion in respect to
these. The Court also denies Nelnet's motion to dismiss the breach
of contract claim and the declaratory and injunctive relief claim.
The Plaintiffs' final two claims are based in the general tort of
invasion of privacy; the Court grants Nelnet's motion to dismiss
these claims.
Judge Russell finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
adequately allege the elements of a plausible negligence claim
against Nelnet. Judge Russell points out that Nelnet owed a duty to
the Plaintiffs, even in the absence of contractual privity, to act
reasonably in safeguarding their PII.
Judge Russell holds that the Plaintiffs properly state claims
against Defendant Nelnet for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of third-party beneficiary contract, and declaratory and injunctive
relief. Their claims for Intrusion upon Seclusion, and Publicity
Given as a Private Fact fail for the reasons set forth in this
Order.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
with respect to the Plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action. The Court
denies the Defendant's Motion with respect to the Plaintiffs'
First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/233h9ezf from PacerMonitor.com.
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Amended Carr Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David L. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit styled KATHLEEN CARR,
individually and on Behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. OKLAHOMA STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY; and NELNET SERVICING,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00099-R (W.D. Okla.).
Before the Court is Defendant Oklahoma Student Loan Authority's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs filed a
Response, and the Defendants, thereafter, filed a Reply.
Plaintiffs Carr, Killory and Powell bring this case individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated regarding a data breach
related to student loan services they received from Defendants
Oklahoma Student Loan Authority ("OSLA") and Nelnet Servicing, LLC.
They allege their personally identifiable information ("PII") was
obtained by malicious actors in 2022 via a data breach of Nelnet's
technology platform. The exposed PII included their names,
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security
numbers.
The Plaintiffs claim both Defendants, Nelnet and OSLA, acted
negligently in protecting the PII they had been provided.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim OSLA committed torts of
negligence, negligence per se, and negligent training, hiring, and
supervision of Nelnet. The Plaintiffs bring additional claims
against OSLA for an invasion of their privacy. Defendant OSLA moves
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' lawsuit for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiffs bring five claims against OSLA. Three sound in
negligence. Of these, the Court grants only OSLA's motion to
dismiss the negligence per se claim. Two other claims are based in
the general tort of invasion of privacy. The Court grants OSLA's
motion to dismiss these claims.
Judge Russell finds that the Plaintiffs properly state claims
against Defendant OSLA for negligence and negligent hiring,
training, and supervision. Their claims for negligence per se,
Intrusion upon Seclusion, and Publicity Given as a Private Fact
fail.
The Plaintiffs attribute the intentional and highly offensive acts
of hackers to OSLA. However, Judge Russell opines, among other
things, that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead that OSLA
intended the harmful breach to occur.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
with respect to the Plaintiffs' Fourth and Eighth Causes of Action.
The Court denies the Defendant's Motion with respect to the
Plaintiffs' Third and Seventh Causes of Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3we2s2 from PacerMonitor.com.
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Court Consolidates Soto & Jones Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California consolidates ANTONIO F. SOTO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORIGIN
MATERIALS, INC., RICHARD J. RILEY, JOHN BISSELL, and NATE S.
WHALEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), and
STEPHEN JONES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC., RICHARD J. RILEY,
JOHN BISSELL, and NATE S. WHALEY, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02202 WBS JDP (E.D. Cal.).
Having considered the parties' stipulation and for good cause
shown, the Court orders that pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Soto v. Origin Materials, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:23-cv-01816 WBS JDP, and Jones v. Origin Materials, Inc. et
al., No. 2:23-cv-02202 WBS JDP, are consolidated for all purposes,
including trial.
The case caption is now: In re ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 2:23-cv-01816 WBS JDP.
Judge Shubb holds that the file in Case No. 2:23-cv-01816 WBS JDP
will constitute the master file for every action in the
consolidated action. The Clerk will administratively close the
Jones action. All parties are directed to make further filings only
to the docket for the consolidated case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryjyyba from PacerMonitor.com.
BORIS FELDMAN -- boris.feldman@freshfields.com -- DORU GAVRIL --
doru.gavril@freshfields.com -- CARL HUDSON --
carl.hudson@freshfields.com -- FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US
LLP, in Redwood City, California, Attorneys for Defendants Origin
Materials, Inc., Richard J. Riley, John Bissell, and Nate S.
Whaley.
PARKER-HANNIFIN: Court OKs Settlement of Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Parker-Hannifin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
quarterly period ended August 14, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2023, that on August 2, 2023,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio finally approved a settlement of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against the company after an unauthorized party gained
access to its systems on March 14, 2022.
The data exfiltrated during the incident included personal
information of its team members. The consolidated class action
lawsuit has been filed in said court.
The parties have reached a settlement in principle in the lawsuit,
which the district court preliminarily approved on March 14, 2023.
Parker-Hannifin Corporation is a worldwide diversified manufacturer
of motion and control technologies and systems, providing precision
engineered solutions for a wide variety of mobile, industrial and
aerospace markets.
PBF ENERGY INC: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Goldstein class suit in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries,
PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the
manager of its Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named
as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to its acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint.
To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would
arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the
acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.
On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited
classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class
representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed
subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for
ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.
On February 5, 2021, its motion for Limited Extension of Discovery
Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint were heard by the Court.
On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef and
on May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint.
On October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint
Navarro as Class Representative.
After considering the parties' proposed orders, on July 5, 2022,
the Court issued a final order ruling that Plaintiffs' Motion to
Substitute Navarro as Class Representative was denied and
decertifying both of Plaintiffs' proposed Air and Ground
Subclasses.
The order provided that the case will proceed with Navarro as the
sole plaintiff and required the parties to meet and confer and
propose a schedule for the remaining pretrial dates and a trial
date.
On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the District Court's
decertification order finding that Navarro is an inadequate class
representative.
The Company's answer to the petition was filed on July 29, 2022.
On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying
Plaintiffs' petition for permission to file an interlocutory
appeal, confirming that the case will proceed with Navarro as the
sole plaintiff.
On January 13, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings.
On January 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its opposition to the
Defendants' motion.
Defendants' reply to Plaintiff's opposition was filed on January
30, 2023.
On February 27, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion
for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed.
Plaintiff’s trespass claim with prejudice and granted.
Plaintiff leave to amend his nuisance claims in conformity with the
order if he can do so consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedures.
On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) relating to the remaining nuisance claims.
On April 7, 2023, the Company responded to the FAC by filing a
motion to dismiss on the pleadings for Plaintiff's failure to
establish standing to bring the nuisance claims.
On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed its opposition to its motion.
On April 24, 2023, the Company filed its reply to Plaintiff’s
opposition.
A hearing on its motion was scheduled for May 8, 2023 but, on May
2, 2023, the Court took the hearing on the motion off calendar.
On May 23, 2023, the Court denied its motion.
After completing further discovery, on August 28, 2023, it filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff's opposition was filed on September 1, 2023. The Company
filed its reply on September 12, 2023.
On October 18, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion,
adjudged that Plaintiff take nothing, and that the action be
dismissed with prejudice.
The order also allows the Company to recover the costs of suit
pursuant to a bill of costs.
On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit regarding the Court's order granting summary
judgment.
The Company presently believes the outcome of this litigation will
not have a material impact on its financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
PEACEHEALTH: $7.35MM Class Settlement in Davies Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Eugene Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Unopposed Motion
for Attorney Fees and Costs in the lawsuit entitled TRACY DAVIES;
ASHLEY DEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PEACEHEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-00825-AA (D. Or.).
Under the heightened standard scrutiny for potential collusion, the
Court concludes that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable.
The Court certifies the Class, as defined in the Court's prior
Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)
solely for purposes of settlement. All Class Members, who timely
requested exclusion are excluded from the Class.
Judge Aiken notes that there were two objections to the proposed
settlement, Stutheit Decl. Exs. E and D. For the reasons discussed
at the final fairness hearing, the objections are overruled.
The Defendant is directed to pay the settlement amount of
$7,350,000 into a common fund held by JND Legal Administration LLC
("JND") in trust no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the
Settlement Effective Date.
Judge Aiken grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorney
Fees and Costs. Class Counsel are awarded attorney fees in the
amount of $1,837,500 and costs in the amount of $24,653.63 to
$26,653.63, as requested.
Representative Plaintiffs Tracy Davies and Ashley DeWitt are
awarded each a service award in the amount of $7,500.
Settlement Administrator JND is awarded costs and expenses in the
amount of $65,000. JND is to distribute all funds or amounts
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement or by court order, including
payments to Class Members, Representative Plaintiffs, and Class
Counsel.
The case is dismissed and final judgment will be entered
accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Oct. 26,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4387djks from
PacerMonitor.com.
PENNSYLVANIA: Bid for Summary Judgment in Alford v. Baylor Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit titled CRAIG ALFORD,
Plaintiff v. LEA BAYLOR, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01787-MWB-MP (M.D. Pa.).
Plaintiff Craig Alford filed this pro se Section 19831 action,
alleging constitutional violations during his pretrial detention at
Monroe County Correctional Facility in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
Presently pending is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
all remaining claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56.
On June 7, 2020, Alford was arrested pursuant to a state criminal
complaint charging him with multiple felonies related to various
firearms offenses. That same day, he was placed into pretrial
detention at Monroe County Correctional Facility (MCCF) in
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, with his bail set at $100,000.
Mr. Alford remained in pretrial detention at MCCF until his jury
trial in May 2021, at the conclusion of which he was convicted on
several felony charges and subsequently sentenced to 156 to 324
months' incarceration.
The civil action was originally commenced on Oct. 1, 2020, by eight
plaintiffs who--at that time--were all pretrial detainees at MCCF.
The complaint was styled as a "class action," seeking to bring
collective Section 1983 claims against four defendants--three
prison officials at MCCF and the Monroe County prothonotary (or
clerk of court). The gravamen of the complaint was that the
plaintiffs were being unlawfully held in pretrial detention and
without arraignment longer than permitted by various Pennsylvania
Rules of Criminal Procedure, thus, violating the plaintiffs'
constitutional rights.
According to the allegations, some plaintiffs were being held in
pretrial detention longer than allowed after the filing of a
criminal complaint (in violation of Rule 600), and others were
being held in pretrial detention too long without arraignment (in
violation of Rule 571). The plaintiffs specifically noted that they
were not seeking release from custody, only monetary damages for
the purported illegal pretrial confinement.
On Oct. 13, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding that the plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims were barred by the Supreme Court's decision in
Heck v. Humphrey, 11 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Only one plaintiff, Craig
Alford, appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the Oct. 13, 2020 judgment and remanded for further proceedings as
to Alford's Section 1983 claim involving failure to timely arraign,
holding only that it was not barred by the favorable termination
rule in Heck v. Humphrey.
On remand, this Court reviewed the complaint to determine if it
stated a claim for relief absent any Heck v. Humphrey bar. On Dec.
8, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
Specifically, the Court determined that the complaint did not plead
facts plausibly establishing how the named Defendants had violated
the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court dismissed the complaint but
granted Alford leave to amend.
In December 2021, Alford filed an amended complaint. He again
attempted to file for himself and on behalf of other plaintiffs,
but those other plaintiffs were dismissed from this action less
than a month later for failure to file amended complaints. In its
dismissal order, the Court explicitly noted that non-lawyer pro se
litigants like Alford cannot represent other parties in federal
court and that because the amended complaint is signed only by
Alford, it applies only to his own claims.
In his amended complaint, Alford alleged that his Fourteenth
Amendment due process rights were violated when he was not timely
arraigned pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure
571(A) and when he was not released on nominal bail after 180 days
of pretrial detention pursuant to Rule 600(B)(1). The Defendants
moved to dismiss Alford's amended complaint.
In a lengthy opinion, the Court dismissed many of Alford's Section
1983 claims but permitted the following to proceed: (1) Alford's
official capacity Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim
against warden Garry Haidle based on an alleged unconstitutional
policy at MCCF, and (2) Alford's individual capacity Fourteenth
Amendment procedural due process claims against Defendants Lea
Baylor, Gregory Armond, and Haidle.
Mr. Alford subsequently moved for declaratory judgment and summary
judgment, but those motions were denied because numerous material
facts remained in dispute. The Defendants now move for summary
judgment on all remaining claims.
Judge Brann finds that Alford has not carried his burden to rebut
the Defendants' summary judgment motion regarding his Rule 571(A)
claims. Summary judgment, therefore, must be granted in the
Defendants' favor on all remaining individual and official capacity
claims concerning untimely arraignment.
Judge Brann notes that Alford's due process claim regarding the
alleged Rule 600(B)(1) violation is more swiftly resolved. That is
because the state-created liberty interest on which he bases his
due process claim--Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600--was
suspended during the entire length of his pretrial detention. Thus,
he has not identified, and indeed cannot identify, a protected
liberty interest that was allegedly infringed.
Mr. Alford claims, pursuant to Rule 600(B)(1), that his due process
rights were violated by the Defendants when he was not released on
nominal bail after 180 days of pretrial detention. However, Judge
Brann says, it is undisputed that, because of the COVID-19
pandemic, the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of
Monroe County, with authorization from the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, suspended Rule 600 from March 16, 2020, through June
30, 2021. Consequently, there can be no Fourteenth Amendment due
process violation.
Summary judgment, therefore, must be granted in the Defendants'
favor with respect to Alford's Rule 600(B)(1) claims, whether
asserted against the Defendants in their official or individual
capacities, Judge Brann points out.
Judge Brann adds that Alford cannot amend his pleadings through a
brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, so there is
no need to examine or discuss any Sixth Amendment speedy trial
claim.
Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
on all remaining claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 19,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yypes4f8 from
PacerMonitor.com.
PENUMBRA INC: Continues to Defend Labor Code-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Penumbra Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Labor-Code-related class suit in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda.
On April 7, 2023, a former contractor who had been retained by the
Company through a third party staffing agency filed a putative
class action lawsuit as well as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative action complaint against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, on behalf of the contractor and similarly situated Company
contractors and employees in California, alleging various claims
pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, overtime,
meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses, wage
statements and records, and other similar allegations.
Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the Company
filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the Company in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated Company
employees in California, alleging similar claims.
The complaints seek payment of various alleged unpaid wages,
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.
The Company believes the claims lack merit, and intends to defend
itself vigorously.
Penumbra is a medical device company headquartered in Alameda,
California.[BN]
POLISHED.COM INC: Faces Maschhof Shareholder Suit Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
Polished.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on October 31, 2022, a
putative shareholder class action was filed against Polished.com
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
as well as certain underwriters of the company's 2020 initial
public offering (IPO).
The action was commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York and is captioned "Maschhof v.
Polished.com Inc., et al.," No. 1:22-cv-06606. The complaint
asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from alleged misstatements and omissions made in
certain of the company's SEC filings made in connection with the
IPO.
On or about December 20, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Although that
motion is fully briefed, to date, oral argument has yet to be
scheduled.
Polished.com Inc. operates a content-driven and technology-enabled
shopping destination for appliances, furniture and home goods. With
warehouse fulfillment centers in the Northeast and Midwest, as well
as showrooms in Brooklyn, New York, and Largo, Florida, it offer
one-stop shopping for national and global brands.
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN STROMQUIST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
AMY VERMEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio
corporation; and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio
corporation; Case No. 8:22-cv-00332-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an amended case progression order
as follows:
1) The status conference scheduled for November 1, 2023, is
cancelled.
2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33,
34, 36, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
February 29, 2024.
3) The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses and completing
expert disclosures for all experts expected to testify at
trial,
(both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and
non-
retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are:
For the plaintiffs: Feb. 29,
2024
For the defendants: April 29,
2024
4) Motion to Certify a Class Action.
a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action shall be
filed by February 29, 2024, in the absence of which any
claim
in the pleadings that this is a class action shall be
deemed
abandoned, and the case shall proceed, for purposes of
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class certification had
been filed and denied by the Court.
b. The Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' class
certification motion by April 29, 2024.
c. The Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of the motion
for class certification by May 23, 2024.
5) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is May 23,
2024.
Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40nELvU at no extra charge.[CC]
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Dlamini Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company and plaintiff agreed to dismiss the Dlamini class suit with
prejudice.
On May 26, 2023, Mfolozi Dlamini filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging injuries as a result of
unauthorized disclosure of certain individuals' personally
identifiable information in connection with a data security
incident discovered by the Company in June 2022.
On September 21, 2023, the plaintiff and the Company agreed to
dismiss the action with prejudice.
Puma Biotechnology, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Los Angeles, California that develops and commercializes
innovative
products to enhance cancer care and improve treatment outcomes for
patients.
QUALCOMM INC: Class Status Bid in Shah Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shah v. Qualcomm
Incorporated et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00121-JO-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and certifying action to proceed as a class action
on behalf of:
"All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the
common stock of Qualcomm Inc. from February 1, 2012, through
January 20, 2017, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby."
On June 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied Defendants' petition for permission to appeal the
Court's March 20, 2023, Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f).
Court-appointed Class Representatives Sjunde AP-Fonden and Metzler
Asset Management GmbH have moved for the entry of an order
approving the proposed form and content of notices of pendency to
be disseminated to the Class, as well as the proposed methods for
dissemination of these notices.
Qualcomm creates semiconductors, software, and services related to
wireless technology.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FFhlbW at no extra charge.[CC]
QUALVOICE LLC: Settlement in Frederick Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York finally approves the class and
collective action settlement in the lawsuit entitled ANDY
FREDERICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUALVOICE LLC and RODNEY NEDD, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-MMH (E.D.N.Y.).
The matter come before the Court, on consent of all parties, for a
fairness hearing on Sept. 14, 2023, pursuant to the Court's Order
granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Class Action Settlement.
The Court finds that the Settlement reached by the parties is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs
and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs as defined in the Court's Preliminary
Approval Order, and satisfies all requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
This Order granting the Motion for Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement, incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Settlement Agreement and all exhibits, addendums, stipulations, and
schedules thereto, with the exception of Paragraph 1.40.
The Court finds that the mailing and distribution of the Notice of
Class Action Settlement ("Notice") constituted the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and that such Notice,
including individual notice to Class Members whose mailing
addresses or other contact information were identified through
reasonable effort, constituted valid, due, and sufficient notice to
all persons entitled thereto, complying fully with the requirements
of Rule 23 and due process.
On behalf of the Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs, the Court
approves the Settlement, finds that it is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of Class Members.
With respect to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs, the Court finds that it
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) and City of
Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974).
Finally, with respect to the Plaintiffs, the Settlement satisfies
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.
2015), and those factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic,
Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The Court directs that the Settlement be consummated in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth in the Preliminary Approval
Order and orders all parties to take the necessary steps to
effectuate the Settlement.
The Court has previously certified and now grants in light of the
date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, final
certification to the following two Settlement Classes:
(a) all individuals employed by the Defendants as cable
installers/technicians, who, at any time during the period
of Oct. 10, 2018, to Aug. 31, 2021, worked for the
Defendants in New York; and
(b) all individuals employed by the Defendants as cable
installers/technicians, who, at any time during the period
of Oct. 10, 2018, to Aug. 31, 2021, worked for the
Defendants in New York, and who timely submit a Claim
Form, thereby, opting into the settlement and, in so
doing, releasing their FLSA claims.
The Settlement provides for a service award to the Named Plaintiff
Andy Frederick in the amount of $15,000. The Settlement also
provides for a payment of $143,170, or the equivalent of 31.8% of
the total Settlement amount as attorneys' fees, plus $6,830.00 for
Class Counsel's out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid to Class
Counsel.
Class Administrator fees are to be paid to Arden Claims Service LLC
("Arden") in the amount of $12,000.
The Court holds that the terms and provisions of the Settlement
have been entered into in good faith and are approved as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement
Classes, and in full compliance with all applicable due process
requirements.
The Settlement is approved as fair and reasonable. The allocation
and distribution as set forth in the Settlement are final.
Judge Henry grants the request for Service Awards. Arden is ordered
to pay the Named Plaintiff in the amount of $15,000, apportioned
from the Settlement Funds in accordance with the parties'
Settlement Agreement.
The Court finds that Class Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees in the amount of $143,170, apportioned from the Settlement
Funds, which is less than the amount explained in the Notices, is
fair and reasonable and is granted. Class Counsel's request for
expenses in the amount of $6,830 is also granted.
Arden is to be paid $12,000 for its administration fees and costs
from the Settlement Amount.
All claims against the Defendants in this action are dismissed with
prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
The Court declines to retain jurisdiction.
Judge Henry enters Final Judgment pursuant to Rules 54 and 58
consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4nuak783 from PacerMonitor.com.
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson's Bid to Strike Five Defenses Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike
the five remaining affirmative defenses in the lawsuit captioned
WILSON, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01566-JG (N.D. Ohio).
Plaintiff Peter Wilson sues Defendants QuoteWizard.com, LLC, and
Perform[CB], LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). He sues on behalf of himself and a class he
asks to be certified.
The Plaintiff alleges that QuoteWizard made aggressive phone calls
to him, and that Perform[CB] has placed at least one of those calls
on QuoteWizard's behalf. In its original answer to the complaint,
Defendant Perform[CB] raised 10 affirmative defenses. The Plaintiff
moves to strike nine of those ten original defenses under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Perform[CB] then filed its first amended answer, raising six of the
ten original affirmative defenses, with some modifications. In its
response to the Plaintiff's motion to strike, Perform[CB] argues
that the motion to strike is now moot, since Perform[CB] has
removed and revised answers in light of the Plaintiff's arguments.
The Plaintiff objects to the following nine affirmative defenses in
Defendant Perform[CB]'s original answer:
(2) failure of class action allegations;
(3) failure to mitigate;
(4) consent;
(5) the Plaintiff did not suffer damages;
(6) acts or omissions of others;
(7) third-party negligence;
(8) comparative fault;
(9) unclean hands; and
(10) waiver.
The Plaintiff argues that these affirmative defenses are legally
insufficient based on the complaint's factual allegations or are
legally insufficient on their face. As an initial matter,
Perform[CB] removed affirmative defenses (2), (3). (7), and (8).
Judge Gwin holds that the Plaintiff's motion to strike is, thus,
moot regarding those affirmative defenses.
Judge Gwin finds that the Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient
basis to strike the remaining five affirmative defenses.
Affirmative defenses (4), (6), (9), and (10) all involve factual
determinations that are more appropriate for summary judgment.
Contrary to the Plaintiff's arguments, Judge Gwin says Perform[CB]
did not have to specifically plead any of the facts supporting
these defenses. These defenses all meet the "fair notice" pleading
requirement and alert Plaintiff to Perform[CB]'s intention to
investigate issues of consent, third-party acts, unclean hands, and
potential waiver.
As for affirmative defense (3), Judge Gwin finds that Plaintiff
Wilson fails to show how it has no possible relation to the
controversy. Even if suffered damages are not a required element
for TCPA actions, the Plaintiff does not cite to any controlling
authority that clearly precludes Perform [CB] from raising this
defense.
For these reasons, the Court denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to strike affirmative defenses (3), (4), (6), (9), and (10); and
dismisses as moot the Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative
defenses (2), (3), (7), and (8).
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ra99kdr from PacerMonitor.com.
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Signs Pension Class Deal for $900,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Rockwell Automation
Inc. will boost the monthly pension payments of about 200 married
retirees in a class settlement valued at about $900,000.
The deal represents about 60% of the retirees' estimated damages
and is a strong result given the "cutting-edge and complex" nature
of the lawsuit, the retirees said in a settlement motion filed on
November 1, 2023 in the US District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin. Their legal theory has never been litigated through
trial and there are no appellate decisions directly considering it,
according to the motion.
Rockwell allegedly calculated joint and survivor annuity
pensions—those that pay post-death benefits. [GN]
RUMBLE INC: Faces Video Privacy Suit in Florida Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Rumble Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 14, 2023, that in October 2022, the company
received notification of a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The lawsuit is currently in discovery of evidence directly
probative of venue, with its motion for summary judgement on the
issue of venue due last September 22, 2023.
Rumble Inc. is a full-service video technology provider offering
customizable video players, original content videos, and a library
of advertisements for use with its video players.
SCIVAC LTD: Vaccine Product Litigation Stayed in Israeli Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that District Court of the
Central District in Israel has accepted the motion of VBI's
subsidiary, SciVac Ltd., to suspend reaching a decision on the
approval of the class action pending the determination of liability
under the civil action.
Preliminary hearings for the trial of the civil action began on
January 15, 2020, with subsequent preliminary hearings held on May
13, 2020, December 3, 2020, September 30, 2021, June 9, 2022,
January 12, 2023 and July 13, 2023. The next preliminary hearing is
scheduled to be held on November 16, 2023.
On September 13, 2018, two civil claims were brought in said court
with SciVac as a defendant. In one claim, two minors, through their
parents, allege, among other things: defects in certain batches of
Sci-B-Vac discovered in July 2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for
use in children and infants in Israel without sufficient evidence
establishing its safety; that SciVac failed to provide accurate
information about Sci-B-Vac to consumers; and that each child
suffered side effects from the vaccine.
The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500 ($507,973). The second claim is a civil
action brought by two minors and their parents against SciVac and
the Ministry of Health of the State of Israel alleging, among other
things, that SciVac marketed an experimental, defective, hazardous
or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was marketed in Israel without
sufficient evidence establishing its safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was
produced and marketed in Israel without approval of a western
regulatory body. The claim seeks damages for past and future losses
and expenses as well as punitive damages.
VBI Vaccines Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries, operates
manufacturing facilities located in Rehovot, Israel and research
facilities located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
SENTINELONE INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Sentinelone, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 31, 2023, that on June 6, 2023, a securities
class action was filed against the company, its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, in the Northern District
of California, captioned "Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc.," Case No.
4:23-cv-02786.
The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders
who purchased or acquired shares of the company's Class A common
stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleges
that defendants made false or misleading statements about the
company's business, operations and prospects, including its annual
recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the case into another action.
The suits are in their preliminary phase, and no response to the
complaints in either action is currently due.
SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity provider that delivers an
artificial intelligence-powered platform to enable autonomous
cybersecurity defense.
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 31, 2023, that consolidated case
captioned "In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,"
Lead Case No. 19CIV05370, remains stayed.
It seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of
investors who purchased Slack's Class A common stock issued
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. Salesforce
acquired Slack in July 2021.
Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits
were filed against its subsidiary Slack Technologies, Inc., its
directors, certain of its officers and certain investment funds
associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations
of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration
statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC. All but one of these
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff originally filed in the
County of San Francisco before refiling in the County of San Mateo
(and the original San Francisco action was dismissed). The
remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
The state court actions were consolidated in November 2019 under
"In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," Lead Case
No. 19CIV05370. Slack and the other defendants filed demurrers to
the complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020.
In August 2020, the court sustained in part and overruled in part
the demurrers, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint, which they filed in October 2020. Slack and the other
defendants answered the complaint in November 2020. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification on October 21, 2021, which
remains pending. On October 26, 2022, the court stayed the State
Court Action pending resolution of Slack's petition for a writ of
certiorari in the Federal Action.
Salesforce, Inc. is into customer relationship management
technology. It has pioneered innovations in cloud, mobile, social,
analytics and artificial intelligence, enabling companies of every
size and industry to transform their businesses in the all-digital,
work-from-anywhere era.
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Partial Dismissal of Dennee Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 31, 2023, that its subsidiary, Slack
Technologies, is facing captioned "Dennee v. Slack Technologies,
Inc.," Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI in federal court. It seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of
investors who purchased Slack's Class A common stock issued
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement.
Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits
were filed against its subsidiary Slack Technologies, Inc., its
directors, certain of its officers and certain investment funds
associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations
of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration
statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC. All but one of these
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff originally filed in the
County of San Francisco before refiling in the County of San Mateo
(and the original San Francisco action was dismissed). The
remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
In said federal action, Slack and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2020. In April 2020, the
court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. In
May 2020, Slack and the other defendants filed a motion to certify
the court's order for interlocutory appeal, which the court
granted. Slack and the other defendants filed a petition for
permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. Oral
argument was heard in May 2021.
On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling. Slack filed a petition for rehearing with the Ninth
Circuit on November 3, 2021, which was denied on May 2, 2022. Slack
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court on August 31, 2022, which was granted on December 13, 2022.
On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision
vacating the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded for further
proceedings. The Ninth Circuit ordered the parties to submit
additional briefing in light of the Supreme Court's decision.
Salesforce, Inc. is into customer relationship management
technology. It has pioneered innovations in cloud, mobile, social,
analytics and artificial intelligence, enabling companies of every
size and industry to transform their businesses in the all-digital,
work-from-anywhere era.
SMITTY'S: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as re: Smitty's/Cam2 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 4:20-md-02936-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file
under seal Exhibit C to their Sur-Reply Suggestions in Opposition
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
1. On July 22, 2020, this Court entered a Stipulated Protective
Order permitting the parties to exchange information that
each
party has previously maintained in a confidential manner and
which disclosure could potentially cause harm to the
interests
of the disclosing party or nonparties.
2. The majority of the exhibits attached to the Defendants'
Sur-
Reply Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class
Certification will not be filed under seal.
3. Pursuant to the Court's CM/ECF Administrative Procedures
Manual
rules pertaining to proposed sealed documents, Defendants
will
send a copy of the foregoing exhibits by email to the Court
pending a ruling on Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
Under
Seal.
Smitty's manufactures and distributes lubricants and related
products.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46UTD7g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nikki Cannezzaro, Esq.
CANNEZZARO MARVEL
4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 130
Kansas City, MO 64114
Telephone: (816) 641-5600
Facsimile: (816) 641-5601
E-mail: nikki@cmlawkc.com
- and –
Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Masson, Esq.
Sharon B. Rosenberg, Esq.
Kristen E. Sanocki, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
505 N. 7th Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 552-6000
Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
E-mail: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
jmasson@thompsoncoburn.com
srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com
ksanocki@thompsoncoburn.com
- and –
Robert J. Hoffman, Esq.
Stephen G. Strauss, Esq.
Timothy J. Hasken, Esq.
Peter W. Bay, Esq.
Randy J. Soriano, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 374-3200
Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
E-mail: RJHoffman@bclplaw.com
SGStrauss@bclplaw.com
tim.hasken@bclplaw.com
peter.bay@bclplaw.com
rjsoriano@bclplaw.com
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that as of January 23,
2023, plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit filed his reply
brief with regard to an appeal filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 22-55641).
On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the
company, Dr. Henry Ji and its SVP of Regulatory Affairs, Mark R.
Brunswick, Ph.D. The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and
Dr. Brunswick made materially false and/or misleading statements to
the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading
statements regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the
SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and that such statements violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit seeks to recover
damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities
laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees.
On February 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an order consolidating said case and
appointing a lead plaintiff, Andrew Zenoff and lead counsel. On
April 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in
accordance with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California's scheduling order. Pursuant to that scheduling
order, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 20, 2021 and
the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on July 2, 2021.
The defendants' reply was filed on August 4, 2021.
On or about November 18, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss with leave to amend. On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff
filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On December 30, 2021,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended
consolidated complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order,
the defendants filed their opposition to the motion on February 7,
2022, and the Plaintiff filed its reply on February 28, 2022. On
April 11, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with
leave to file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. Plaintiff did
not file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022.
On June 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment in
favor of defendants and close the case. On June 3, 2022, judgment
was entered in favor of defendants, and the case was closed. On
June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 22-55641).
On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff/Appellant filed an opening brief and
on December 2, 2022, the defendants/appellees' filed their
answering brief.
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical and commercial stage
biopharmaceutical company developing a portfolio of treatments for
cancer, infectious disease and pain.
SOUTHERN CO: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the
Georgia Supreme Court concluded the municipal franchise fees class
suit after the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration on February 16, 2023.
In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims.
This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the
last several years.
In 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power
has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule.
In March 2021, the Superior Court of Fulton County granted class
certification and Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment and
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
In April 2021, Georgia Power filed a notice of cross appeal on the
issue of class certification.
In December 2021, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
Superior Court's ruling that granted summary judgment to Georgia
Power and dismissed Georgia Power's cross appeal on the issue of
class certification as moot.
Also in December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on
January 27, 2023.
On February 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on
February 16, 2023.
This matter is now concluded.
Southern Company is an American gas and electric utility holding
company.
SPLUNK INC: Plaintiff Files Bid for Initial OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Splunk Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 24, 2023, that on February 7, 2023, lead
plaintiff in a putative class action lawsuit filed an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of a settlement.
The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is under
submission and is awaiting a decision by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
Said class action lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities
laws and was filed on December 4, 2020 against the company, its
former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer. The operative complaint, filed by lead plaintiff Louisiana
Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding our marketing
efforts, hiring practices, and retention of personnel. The lead
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On March 21, 2022, the court issued a decision granting in part and
denying in part a motion to dismiss filed by defendants, which
limited the putative class period to May 21, 2020 through December
2, 2020.
On January 30, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement, subject to court approval. The settlement resolves all
claims asserted against the company and the other named defendants
without any admission, concession, or finding of any fault,
liability, or wrongdoing by defendants.
Splunk Inc. provides solutions for security and observability that
empower security operations, IT operations, and development
operations teams to maintain resilient systems by monitoring and
securing them more quickly and efficiently.
STABLE ROAD: Agreement Reached in Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 14, 2023, that on February 10, 2023, the lead
plaintiff in a consolidated securities class action and the company
reached an agreement in principle to settle.
A purported stockholder of its Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (SRAC)
filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI
Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO),
Momentus, and the company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail
Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, in a case captioned "Depoy v. Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-06287. This was
consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on November 12,
2021.
The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material
information in their public statements and disclosures regarding
its 2021 merger, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks
damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased
SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On August 12,
2021, the company consummated a merger by and among SRAC, Project
Marvel First Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
SRAC and Project Marvel Second Merger Sub, LLC. In connection with
the closing of the merger, the company changed its name from Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. to Momentus Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff,
on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise
acquired company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021,
inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or
that could have been asserted in the securities class actions and
dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5
million by the company.
The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a
memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement,
notice to the proposed class, and approval by the court.
Momentus Inc. is a U.S. commercial space company that offers
in-space infrastructure services, including in-space
transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services.
STABLE ROAD: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 14, 2023, that on February 10, 2023, the lead
plaintiff in a consolidated securities class action and the company
reached an agreement in principle to settle.
A purported stockholder of its Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (SRAC)
filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI
Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO),
Momentus, and the company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail
Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, in a case captioned "Hall v. Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-05943. This was
consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on November 12,
2021.
The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material
information in their public statements and disclosures regarding
its 2021 merger, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks
damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased
SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On August 12,
2021, the company consummated a merger by and among SRAC, Project
Marvel First Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
SRAC and Project Marvel Second Merger Sub, LLC. In connection with
the closing of the merger, the company changed its name from Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. to Momentus Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff,
on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise
acquired company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021,
inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or
that could have been asserted in the securities class actions and
dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5
million by the company.
The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a
memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement,
notice to the proposed class, and approval by the court.
Momentus Inc. is a U.S. commercial space company that offers
in-space infrastructure services, including in-space
transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services.
STABLE ROAD: To Settle Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 14, 2023, that on February 10, 2023, the lead
plaintiff in a consolidated securities class action and the company
reached an agreement in principle to settle said action.
On July 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of its Stable Road
Acquisition Corp. (SRAC) filed a putative class action complaint
against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James
Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the company's co-founder and
former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, in a case captioned "Jensen
v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-05744.
The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material
information in their public statements and disclosures regarding
its 2021 merger, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks
damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased
SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On August 12,
2021, the company consummated a merger by and among SRAC, Project
Marvel First Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
SRAC and Project Marvel Second Merger Sub, LLC. In connection with
the closing of the merger, the company changed its name from Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. to Momentus Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff,
on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise
acquired company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021,
inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or
that could have been asserted in the securities class actions and
dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5
million by the company.
The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a
memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement,
notice to the proposed class, and approval by the court.
Momentus Inc. is a U.S. commercial space company that offers
in-space infrastructure services, including in-space
transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services.
STATE FARM: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Andy Kravetz of Clproud.com reports that a Florida couple claims
State Farm was negligent and violated their privacy by not
preventing a data breach this summer that led to the theft of 400
million records that contained personal information.
The suit, originally filed in McLean County Circuit Court in
September but moved to U.S. District in Peoria two weeks ago,
claims the Bloomington-based insurance giant "breached its duties
to class members by, among other things, failing to implement and
maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect
the Personal Information entrusted to it from unauthorized access
and disclosure."
A class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all people who had their
information hacked, the 33-page suit seeks unspecific damages
regarding claims of negligence, invasion of privacy and breaching
the company's fiduciary duty among other things.
The data included health information, addresses, phone numbers and
financial information, the suit alleges.
A call to the Scotts' Minneapolis-based attorneys was not
returned.
In an Oct. 18 filing where State Farm asked to move the case from
state court to federal court, the company said it "denies the
allegations in the complaint, which are factually and legally
baseless."
State Farm wanted to move the case, which isn't uncommon, for a
variety of reasons including that it's a class action suit, that a
possible payout could be in the tens of millions of dollars and
that the case crosses state lines.
The amount of people who were affected is staggering. State Farm
wrote in a court filing that even "if some customers had multiple
entries -- e.g., a customer had more than one insurance policy -- a
conservative extrapolation from that data is 25,011,429 customers
with records affected by the alleged data breach." [GN]
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Nguyen Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUY NGUYEN, on behalf of
himself and other individuals similarly situated, v. STEPHENS
INSTITUTE D/B/A ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-04195-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey S. White entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class.
The Court finds that the only remaining damages Plaintiff can
recover -- the course fees for individual classes -- are so varied
as to fail the predominance requirement.
The adjudication of the course fees would require separate and
individualized analyses among each of the courses. Accordingly, the
Court finds that class certification is unwarranted.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all students enrolled at
the Academy of Art University during the Spring 2020 semester who
(i) were registered for at least one on-site course, and
(ii) paid tuition and/or fees, or on whose behalf tuition and
fees
were paid.
The action arises from the Academy's determination to close the
campus and cancel all in-person and oncampus educational services
and to transition to exclusively online instruction in Spring 2020
in response to the COVID-19 epidemic.
The Plaintiff contends that, despite being unable to provide
students with the in-person and on-campus educational services that
they had agreed to, the Academy retained the full amount of tuition
and the majority of fees.
The Plaintiff contends that he was denied access to the benefits
and services he had bargained for and moves to certify a class of
similar students who were forced to continue their education
entirely online.
Stephens Institute is a private for-profit art school in San
Francisco, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47df4QJ at no extra charge.[CC]
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard, et al., Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIEL BERNARD, DEAN J.
SCHEMANSKI, THOM M. GRAY, JALONNE RICE, MANUEL ACEVEDO, AHMED ADAM,
MARK S. DELMEDICO, ROGER TADJBAKHSH, ROSA VALERY, IBRAHIM
ELSALAMONI, JOHN M. FINK, JODIE HOLMES, DONALD NG, BARBARA SELIG,
EKOVI AMENOUNVE, NADEEM WAQAR, and IPUOLE OGAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Strategic Delivery
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07396-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for class certification.
The Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 to certify four separate classes under New Jersey,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
The Plaintiffs in this case have asserted wage-and-hour claims on
behalf of themselves and all other pharmaceutical delivery drivers
who were classified as independent contractors by Strategic
Delivery in New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
Discovery has confirmed the core allegations in this case.
Specifically, SDS, as a matter of policy and practice, classifies
all of its delivery drivers as nonemployee "independent
contractors" and thus fails to pay overtime and makes deductions
from their pay which violate applicable wage statutes.
SDS also admittedly fails to pay drivers any overtime premium for
hours worked over forty per week and does not perform any
accounting to ensure that drivers are paid the statutory minimum
wage in a given week. SDS's drivers are required to use their
personal vehicles to perform their assigned deliveries for SDS, yet
they are not reimbursed for the extraordinary expenses they incur
driving hundreds or thousands of miles per week making deliveries
for the company, driving
their hourly pay below the statutory minimum in the applicable
state.
Because the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are met, Plaintiffs
seek certification of the following separate classes under Rule
23:
The Plaintiffs Bernard, Schemanski, and Rice seek certification of
a
class of:
"all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in
the State of New Jersey at any time from six years preceding the
filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor
agreement with SDS (the New Jersey Class).
The Plaintiffs Acevedo and Adam seek certification of a class of:
"all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in
the State of Connecticut at any time from two years preceding to
the filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor
agreement with SDS (the Connecticut Class)."
The Plaintiff Elsalamoni, Fink, Holmes, Ng, Selig, Amenounve, and
Waqar seek certification of a class of:
"all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in
the State of Pennsylvania at any time from three years preceding
the filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor
agreement with SDS (the Pennsylvania Class)."
The Plaintiff Ogar seeks certification of a class of:
"all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in
the State of Maryland at any time from three years preceding the
filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor
agreement with SDS (the Maryland Class)."
Strategic is a warehouse and transportation broker that services
large institutional pharmacies.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QkQwia at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
- and -
W. Jeffrey Vollmer, Esq.
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
300 Summers Street, Suite 1500
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-7000
E-mail: wjv@goodwingoodwin.com
STRIDE INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stride Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 16, 2023, that on November 22, 2022, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a
published opinion affirming the decision of the District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia upholding the dismissal of
consolidated case captioned "In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation,"
Case No. 1:20-cv-01419.
On December 11, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned "Jennifer Baig v. K12 Inc., et al," Case No.
1:20-cv-01528, was filed against the company and two of its former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, purportedly on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020.
On February 17, 2021, said court consolidated the Baig Case under
the caption "In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation" and appointed a
lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on April 5, 2021, alleging violations by the company and
the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by
the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or
omitted to disclose material facts concerning the company's
technological capabilities and expertise to support increased
demand for virtual and blended education related to the global
emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections,
and its administrative support and training to teachers, students
and parents. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety on May 20, 2021, which the District Court granted,
without prejudice, on September 16, 2021. The plaintiffs did not
file a second amended complaint, but appealed the District Court's
dismissal decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on December 1, 2021.
Stride is an education services company providing virtual and
blended learning.
SUMMIT MEDICAL: Bid for Partial Judgment in Wiley Suit OK'd in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David L. Bunning of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Covington, grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the
lawsuit captioned STELLA WILEY, PLAINTIFF v. ZEGARY ALLEN, M.D., et
al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00026-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky.).
The matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Zegary Allen, M.D. ("Dr.
Allen"); Summit Medical Group, Inc. d/b/a St. Elizabeth Physicians
("SEP"); and Saint Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc. ("SEMC" and,
together with Dr. Allen and SEP, "Defendants"). Plaintiff Stella
Wiley filed a Response and the Defendants filed a Reply.
The lawsuit stems from Dr. Allen's performance of laser eye
surgeries on his patients. SEP is a Kentucky corporation, which
operates SEMC, a business with medical facilities in Kenton County,
Kentucky, and Boone County, Kentucky. Dr. Allen, an Ohio resident
and domiciliary, is an employee of SEP and performs eye surgeries
at SEMC.
The Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Allen has been performing
unnecessary eye surgeries on patients from approximately March 2018
to the present. Relevant to the instant Motion is the selective
laser trabeculoplasty Dr. Allen performed on Wiley, a Kentucky
resident and domiciliary.
Ms. Wiley first visited Dr. Allen on Sept. 10, 2021, during which
visit her vision was allegedly good. On another visit, Dr. Allen
allegedly told Wiley that she risked permanent blindness if she did
not undergo laser surgery.
On Jan. 7, 2022, Dr. Allen performed laser surgery on Wiley's right
eye. On Feb. 15, 2022, Wiley returned to Dr. Allen for a four-week
post operation checkup. The checkup revealed that the intraocular
pressures ("IOPs") in both of Wiley's eyes had reduced since the
surgery and were both below 21. According to Wiley, selective laser
trabeculoplasty is a treatment for glaucoma. She submits that she
never was diagnosed with glaucoma.
On Feb. 17, 2023, Wiley initiated this action by filing her
Complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332. She brings various claims on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated plaintiffs, although she is the only named
plaintiff. She asserts claims of negligence, lack of informed
consent, fraud, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act
("KCPA"), and negligence per se against all Defendants. She also
asserts a battery claim against Dr. Allen and vicarious liability
claims against SEP and SEMC. Additionally, she requests that the
case be certified as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Defendants have now moved for a partial judgment on the
pleadings dismissing Wiley's claims except for the fraud, KCPA, and
vicarious liability claims. Wiley responded, and the Defendants
replied.
The Defendants move for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant
to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The standard
of review for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
The Defendants make two arguments in their Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings. First, they argue that Wiley's claims of
negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. Second, they argue that Wiley
fails to adequately plead her claims of negligence per se.
Although the first argument fails at this procedural posture, Judge
Bunning holds that the second argument is meritorious.
Having determined that the discovery rule applies to Wiley's claims
of negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery, the Court
cannot determine at this juncture whether the claims are
time-barred. For these reasons, the Motion for Partial Judgment on
the Pleadings will be denied as to Wiley's claims of negligence,
lack of informed consent, and battery.
Under Kentucky law, a plaintiff asserting a negligence per se claim
must prove the following elements: (1) that the underlying statute
is criminal in nature without an inclusive civil remedy; (2) that
the plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute is
intended to protect; and (3) that the plaintiff's injury is the
type of injury the statute was designed to prevent.
In support of her negligence per se claims, Judge Bunning notes
that Wiley merely recites the elements and states that the
Defendants' actions constituted negligence per se as they are
facial violations of existing laws and regulations.
Judge Bunning points out that this is insufficient. Without knowing
which statutes the Defendants allegedly violated, the Court cannot
determine whether Wiley adequately pled any of the elements of
negligence per se.
Moreover, Judge Bunning finds Wiley appears to have waived any
defense as to this claim. The Defendants expressly argued in the
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings that Wiley failed to
adequately plead negligence per se. She did not address the
Defendants' argument or reference the claim at all in her Reply.
The Court assumes that Wiley concedes this issue.
For these reasons, Judge Bunning holds the Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings will be granted as to Wiley's negligence
per se claims.
At the end of her Response, Wiley requests that if the Court were
to find her Complaint was improperly pled or insufficient in some
respect that it afford her an opportunity, after reviewing the
Court's opinion, to amend and correct the error.
Judge Bunning opines that Wiley has not formally moved to amend the
Complaint, and in the absence of such a motion, the Court will not
take up the issue.
Thus, for the reasons set forth, Judge Bunning rules that the
Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is granted
as to the negligence per se claims in Plaintiff Stella Wiley's
Complaint, and denied as to the negligence, lack of informed
consent, and battery claims in her Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtbbz6mt from
PacerMonitor.com.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Suit for $290M Over Wage Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Shepherd of SHRM reports that rideshare companies Uber and
Lyft will pay a combined $328 million to settle wage theft claims
in New York, state Attorney General Letitia James announced on Nov.
2.
Uber will pay $290 million, and Lyft will pay $38 million into two
separate settlement funds that will be distributed to current and
former drivers.
The settlements will institute a minimum earnings floor, paid sick
leave, proper hiring and earnings notices, and other improvements
in drivers' working conditions, James said.
From 2014 to 2017, Uber deducted sales taxes and Black Car Fund
fees from drivers' payments when those taxes and fees should have
been paid by passengers, James said. The Black Car Fund is a
nonprofit organization created by New York State to protect
for-hire drivers and passengers. It provides safety and health
programs and workers' compensation insurance to black car and
limousine drivers.
Uber misrepresented the deductions made to drivers' pay in their
terms of service, telling drivers that Uber would only deduct its
commission from the drivers' fares, and that drivers were entitled
to charge the passenger for any tolls, taxes or fees incurred,
although no method to do so was provided via the Uber Driver app,
James said.
Lyft employed a similar method to shortchange drivers from 2015 to
2017, deducting a 11.4 percent administrative charge from drivers'
payments in New York equal to the amount of sales tax and Black Car
Fund fees that should have been paid by passengers. Uber and Lyft
also failed to provide drivers with paid sick leave guaranteed to
workers under New York City and New York state law, James said.
With the settlements, drivers will earn one hour of sick pay for
every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 56 hours per year, James
said.
"We are thrilled that our members won this historic victory to
recover their stolen income," said Bhairavi Desai, executive
director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a Long Island City,
N.Y.-based union for drivers.
"The agreement is a win for drivers across New York State who can
now enjoy both the flexibility that is so important to them, while
also having new benefits and protections like a minimum earnings
standard and paid sick leave," Tony West, Uber's chief legal
officer, said in a press release. "This helps put to rest the
classification issue in New York and moves us forward with a model
that reflects the way people are increasingly choosing to work."
In a statement, Lyft said, "The agreement prioritizes the benefits
drivers want without sacrificing the independence and flexibility
they need."
We've collected a group of articles on the news from SHRM Online
and other trusted sources.
Minimum Wage
New York City was the first city in the country to establish a
minimum wage for app-based drivers, who have been classified as
independent contractors. The city also implemented a minimum wage
for app-based food delivery services, such as Uber Eats.
Uber and Lyft drivers in New York City receive a $17.96 per hour
minimum wage under regulations established by the city's Taxi &
Limousine Commission in 2019. Under the new settlements, Uber and
Lyft drivers outside of New York City will receive a minimum of $26
per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, James said.
Drivers Continue to Be Classified as Independent Contractors
More than 100,000 current and former drivers in the state are
eligible to benefit from the settlements.
The settlement ends James' probe into Uber's and Lyft's
classification of drivers as independent contractors instead of
employees, a practice both companies regularly defend in lawsuits,
when dealing with legislators, and at the ballot box.
Uber and Lyft, both based in San Francisco, denied wrongdoing. The
settlements equal a little under 1 percent of Uber's and Lyft's
annual revenue.
In a separate settlement, Uber recently agreed with the New York
State Department of Labor to begin making quarterly payments to a
state insurance fund to ensure that unemployed drivers receive
benefits.
California Drivers Remain Independent Contractors
Ride-hailing and delivery companies can continue to treat their
California drivers as independent contractors, a state appeals
court ruled on March 13. The court mostly upheld the state's
Proposition 22, which said ride-hailing businesses could legally
classify their drivers as independent contractors, rather than
employees. In general, independent contractors aren't entitled to
the benefit plans and legal protections that employees receive.
Settlement in California
In 2022, Uber agreed to pay $8.4 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit with California drivers who claimed they were misclassified
as independent contractors, rather than employees.
The settlement applies to drivers who used the Uber Rides App in
California between Feb. 28, 2019, and Dec. 16, 2020, or who used
the Uber Eats App in California between June 28, 2016, and Oct. 7,
2021, and who opted out of Uber's arbitration agreement. It does
not reclassify drivers as employees.
Uber, headquartered in San Francisco, has about 1 million U.S.
drivers and about 29,000 employees worldwide.
Action In Other States
Drivers in New York City, Seattle and California all have minimum
wage guarantees. Uber and Lyft successfully blocked minimum wage
laws for gig workers in Minnesota, and driver advocates are pushing
for reforms in Chicago, as well.
Based on the New York settlements, Uber and Lyft will update their
apps to allow drivers to request sick leave through the apps. [GN]
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Saleh VPPA Suit
----------------------------------------------
Udemy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Saleh video privacy protection act class
suit in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
On December 12, 2022, a putative class action complaint captioned
Mohamed Saleh v. Udemy, Inc., was filed against the Company,
alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (the
"VPPA") and claiming that Udemy violated the VPPA by knowingly
sharing personally identifiable information about the viewing
history of Udemy courses with an advertiser.
The complaint is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:23-cv-02207.
The complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
statutory, liquidated, and punitive damages, as well as reasonable
attorney fees and costs.
On August 30, 2023, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration.
It intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Udemy, Inc. is a global learning company headquartered in San
Francisco, California whose online platform empowers organizations
and individuals with flexible and effective skill acquisition and
development.
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Williams Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Udemy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Williams class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
On August 23, 2021, a putative class action complaint captioned
Williams v. Udemy, Inc., Case No. 3:21-CV-06489, was filed against
us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging violations of California's unfair competition
and false advertising statutes as well as the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act in connection with the Company's pricing
practices.
The complaint sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages,
restitution and disgorgement of profits.
On December 13, 2022, the parties entered into a definitive
settlement agreement for an immaterial amount.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to dismiss
the pending case in federal court and refile in California state
court, which filing was made on February 3, 2023.
On July 28, 2023, the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego granted final approval of the settlement in Case
No.37-2023-00003666-CU-BT-NC.
Udemy, Inc. is a global learning company headquartered in San
Francisco, California whose online platform empowers organizations
and individuals with flexible and effective skill acquisition and
development.
UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Colleton Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UMass Memorial Health
Care Inc. The case is styled as Lisa Colleton, on behalf of Herself
and all others similarly situated v. UMass Memorial Health Care
Inc., Case No. 2384CV02450 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct.
30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Torts."
UMass Memorial Health -- https://www.ummhealth.org/ -- is the
largest health care system in Central Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
William Patrick Doyle, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF COLONNA, DOYLE AND SIMEOLA
26 Main St 3rd Floor
Lynnfield, MA 01940
The Defendant is represented by:
James Hefferan Rollinson, Esq.,
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Suit Filed in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UMass Memorial Health
Care Inc. The case is styled as John Doe, individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UMass Memorial Health
Care Inc., Case No. 2384CV02448 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.,
Oct. 30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Torts."
UMass Memorial Health -- https://www.ummhealth.org/ -- is the
largest health care system in Central Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sara Aguiniga, Esq.
Nathan B Campbell, Esq.
Alex J Dravillas, Esq.
Foster C Johnson, Esq.
Erin E McHugh, Esq.
SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP
268 Summer St
The Defendant is represented by:
James Hefferan Rollinson, Esq.,
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
UNITED HELPERS: Class Action Discovery in Groulx Due March 25, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denise Groulx, v. United
Helpers Care, Inc. Case No. 8:23-cv-00561-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel J. Stewart entered an order that:
-- Any motion to join any person as a Nov. 3, 2023
party to this action shall be made
on or before:
-- Any motion to amend any pleading in Nov. 3, 2023
this action shall be made on or before:
-- All discovery related to the Certification March 25, 2024
of Class Action in this matter is to
be completed on or before:
United Helpers provides health care services. The Company offers
assisted living, home care, rehabilitation, and respite care.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46cfMx3 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia denies the Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit captioned
ROZINA KIMANI MUTHOKA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02436-UNA (D.D.C.).
Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's pro se initiating
pleading, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
("IFP"). For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion, the
Court will deny the Plaintiff's IFP application and dismiss the
complaint.
The Plaintiff, who is currently designated the St. Louis County
Jail, has presented submissions that are difficult to follow, Judge
Cobb says. Her initiating pleading is captioned as a "Bill of
Reversion Writ, Writ of Right," but a plaintiff must open a civil
matter by filing a civil complaint.
Judge Cobb opines that the pleading also fails to comply with the
formal requirements of Federal Civil Rule 10(b) and D.C. Local
Civil Rule 5.1(d), (e), (g). She sues approximately 11 Defendants,
including the United States, the state of Missouri, federal courts,
and other party defendants that cannot be discerned. She also fails
to provide contact information for the Defendants, in contravention
of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1).
Assuming that the Plaintiff intended her pleading to serve a
complaint, and generously construing it as such, the contents fare
no better, Judge Cobb says. The complaint consists of a mix of
vague and unconnected allegations, non-sequiturs, and personal
anecdotes, all covering a range of topics.
The Plaintiff asks this Court to "enforce legislation," demanding
$144 trillion in damages under a litany of different laws, but she
fails to make out a cognizable claim under any of the authority
cited, Judge Cobb adds.
A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions does
not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Judge Cobb opines, citing Cheeks v. Fort Myer
Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014). The instant
complaint falls within this category. As presented, neither the
Court nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify any
of the intended claims.
Furthermore, Judge Cobb notes, it appears that the Plaintiff is
attempting to proceed with this matter, at least in part, on behalf
of an estate and/or trust, and she indicates that she brings this
matter as a class action. As an artificial entity, a trust cannot
proceed in federal court without licensed counsel. Also, a pro se
litigant cannot bring a class action, Judge Cobb points out.
To that same end, the Plaintiff has filed an IFP application, at
least in part, on behalf of a trust, but an artificial entity
cannot proceed under the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1),
Judge Cobb explains. More, even if the Plaintiff intended to bring
the IFP application only on her own behalf, it is devoid of any of
the information or material necessary to assess her financial
circumstances, and fails to include her prison ledger sheets. For
these reasons, the IFP application must be denied.
For these reasons, Judge Cobb holds that this case is dismissed
without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 19,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2suhxd2a from
PacerMonitor.com.
UPS STORE: Court Denies Bid to Invalidate Class Suit Waiver
-----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Miller and Rachel O'Connor of JD Supra report that a federal
court in New Jersey recently declined to issue an order
invalidating the class action waiver and arbitration provision used
by franchisor The UPS Store, Inc. and certain TUPSS franchisees'
(collectively, TUPSS) and it would not bar TUPSS from soliciting
such waivers from their customers going forward. Tripicchio v. UPS
Store, Inc., 2023 WL 6307528 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2023). The customers
filed suit against TUPSS, purporting to represent a class of
customers who were charged more than $2.50 for notary services in
violation of New Jersey law. The customers' motion relates to a
class action waiver that TUPSS's New Jersey franchisees secure from
each customer as a condition of receiving notary services.
The customers sought two types of relief. First, the customers
requested that the court invalidate any executed waivers that TUPSS
or any New Jersey franchisee had received from any customer to
date. The court denied this request and declined to address whether
the waiver was enforceable because the court found it had no
authority to declare the class action waiver invalid before any
party attempts to enforce the waiver. Second, the customers
requested that the court mandate that TUPSS modify the waivers to
provide customers with detailed disclosures about the instant
litigation, permit customers to opt out of the waiver before
receiving notary services, and create a court-approved website, at
TUPSS's expense, with information about the instant litigation. The
customers argued that the waiver was misleading because it does not
give notice of the instant litigation. The court denied this
request as well, holding that the customers had not established (1)
specific harm that would flow from permitting TUPSS to employ their
current waiver and (2) justification for ordering the requested
injunctive relief. The court did, however, acknowledge that once
the customers move for class certification, the court may
invalidate a future attempt to use any waiver secured after
September 2021 to preclude customers who received notary services
before September 2021 from joining the class. [GN]
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Levine Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL LEVINE, Plaintiff v. VITAMIN COTTAGE
NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-STV
(D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado denies:
(1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendant's
Motion"); and
(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
("Plaintiff's Motion").
The Motions are before the Court on the parties' consent to have a
United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this
action and to order the entry of a final judgment. The Court has
determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the
disposition of the Motions.
The Defendant is a Colorado corporation that owns and operates more
than 150 grocery stores in 20 states. It employs more than 3,000
people across the United States, including dozens of Assistant
Store Managers ("ASMs") at its retail stores. The Plaintiff was one
such ASM, working in the position between March 2018 and April 2019
at one of the Defendant's stores located in Highlands Ranch,
Colorado.
As an ASM, the Plaintiff earned an annual salary of $47,500. The
Defendant's job description describes the role of an ASM as the
second person in charge of the store and responsible for the
successful operation and profitability of the store. The
Plaintiff's resume description for his time as an ASM listed the
following tasks: assisting in the overall successful operation and
profitability of his store; interviewing and hiring; and training
staff on how to give exemplary customer service. He testified that
these items represented "a very small part" of what he did as an
ASM but consisted of some of the "higher priority tasks" that he
was involved with as an ASM.
During his approximately 13-month employment as an ASM, the
Plaintiff had some degree of involvement in various
responsibilities related to running the store. The parties focus on
the following general categories: interviewing and hiring,
scheduling and adjusting/approving payroll, directing the work of
other employees, training and on-boarding other employees,
monitoring and evaluating other employees' work performance,
managing store finances and inventory, handling employee and
customer complaints, disciplining and terminating employees, and
general management and supervision.
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on Jan. 31, 2020, and, in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), consented to
join this action on the same date. The operative Complaint alleges
that Natural Grocers violated the FLSA and the Colorado Wage Claim
Act ("CWCA") by improperly classifying the Plaintiff and other ASMs
as exempt employees and denying them overtime. The Complaint also
asserts a claim under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (the "CMWA").
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's CMWA claim on Sept. 19, 2022,
holding that he failed to plausibly allege a violation of the CMWA
for which relief is available.
On Nov. 6, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification, and conditionally certified the
following collective for the purposes of his FLSA claims:
All current and former "Assistant Store Managers" who worked
for Natural Grocers in the United States at any time on or
after Jan. 31, 2017, to the present, and who were classified
as exempt from overtime compensation.
On Dec. 7, 2022, after the close of discovery, the Defendant filed
a Motion to Decertify, arguing that discovery established that the
members of the collective and the named Plaintiff are not similarly
situated. On Feb. 22, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Certify, seeking to certify a class of ASMs under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 for the purposes of his CWCA claims.
On May 25, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to
Decertify and denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify, concluding
that the ASMs, who had opted into the collective action, were not
"similarly situated" for the purposes of the FLSA claims and that
the requirements of Rule 23 were not met for the purposes of
certifying a class action on the Plaintiff's CWCA claims.
Accordingly, the claims of all ASMs, who had opted into the
collective action, were dismissed.
On June 30, 2023, the Defendant filed its Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Plaintiff has responded and the Defendant has
replied. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. The Defendant has responded and he has
replied.
In its Motion, the Defendant argues that the undisputed facts
establish that: (1) the Plaintiff was correctly classified as
exempt under both state and federal law; (2) the Defendant did not
willfully violate the FLSA; and (3) the Defendant acted in good
faith and reasonably believed that its conduct was lawful.
In his Motion, the Plaintiff argues that the undisputed facts
establish that the Defendant willfully misclassified him during the
time that he spent in the training program in Golden, Colorado.
Having considered the factors relevant to a "primary duty" analysis
and the Plaintiff's job as a whole, the Court finds that there is a
genuine dispute as to whether the Plaintiff's primary duty as an
ASM was the management of the store. Accordingly, Judge Varholak
says the Defendant has not met its burden of establishing its
entitlement to summary judgment on the executive exemption, and the
Defendant's Motion is denied to the extent that it seeks summary
judgment on this ground.
The same fact issues that precluded summary judgment under the FLSA
exemptions similarly preclude summary judgment on the Plaintiff's
CWCA law claim, Judge Varholak opines. Accordingly, the Defendant
has not met its burden of establishing its entitlement to summary
judgment on the Plaintiff's CWCA claim, and the Defendant's Motion
is denied to the extent that it seeks a summary judgment on this
ground.
Judge Varholak also denies the Defendant's Motion to the extent
that it seeks summary judgment on the issue of whether the
Defendant acted willfully, and to the extent that it seeks a
determination that the Defendant acted reasonably and in good faith
in classifying the Plaintiff as exempt.
Turning to Plaintiff's Motion, the Plaintiff seeks partial summary
judgment on both his FLSA and CWCA claims, asserting that the
undisputed facts establish that he was entitled to overtime
compensation for hours worked above 40 in a workweek during the
several-week training program that he attended in Golden,
Colorado.
Thus, Judge Varholak says the Plaintiff may be entitled to overtime
compensation under the FLSA for hours worked during the Defendant's
training program--even if the position that he was training for
qualified as exempt. However, turning to the Defendant's factual
argument, the Court agrees with the Defendant that the undisputed
facts do not compel this conclusion.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's primary duties during
training and the amount of overtime he worked during this period
(if any) are questions to be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, Judge
Varholak denies the Plaintiff's Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3thycvym from PacerMonitor.com.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bids to Dismiss Tijerina Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit titled BEATRIZ TIJERINA,
et al., Plaintiffs v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-18755-BRM-LDW (D.N.J.).
Before the Court are motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VW America"); Defendant
Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC ("VW
Chattanooga"); and Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft ("VWAG")
(collectively "Defendants"). The Plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions. VW America, VW Chattanooga, and VWAG filed their
respective replies. The Court reviewed the parties' submissions
filed in connection with the Motions and declined to hold oral
argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b).
Plaintiffs Beatriz Tijerina, David Concepcion, Gina Aprile, Theresa
Gillespie, Talina Henderson, Diana Ferrara, Lauren Daly, Shane
McDonald, Kasem Curovic, Christa Callahan, Erica Upshur, Johnnie
Moutra, Jennifer Tolbert, Derek Lowe, Phillip Hooks, and Delia
Masone (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this putative class
action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Plaintiffs Tijerina and Concepcion reside in California. Plaintiffs
Aprile, Gillespie, and Masone reside in Florida. Plaintiff
Henderson resides in Kentucky. Plaintiffs Ferrara and Daly reside
in Massachusetts. Plaintiff McDonald resides in Michigan. Plaintiff
Curovic resides in New York. Plaintiff Callahan resides in
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Lowe resides in New Jersey. Plaintiff
Upshur resides in Pennsylvania but purchased her vehicle in New
Jersey. Plaintiff Tolbert resides in Virginia. Plaintiff Moutra
resides in Texas. Plaintiff Hooks resides in Florida but purchased
his vehicle in Missouri.
The action arises out of an alleged design defect in certain 2018
through 2021 model Volkswagen Atlas vehicles purchased or leased
after Jan. 1, 2017 ("Class Vehicles"). The Plaintiffs bring this
putative class action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against VW America, VW Chattanooga, and VWAG.
VWAG, a German corporation with its principal place of business in
Germany, is the parent corporation of VW America. VW America is a
New Jersey corporation with its corporate headquarters located in
Virginia and is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG. VW Chattanooga
is a Volkswagen plant located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which
manufactured the Class Vehicles. VW Chattanooga is a wholly owned
subsidiary of VW America.
The Plaintiffs allege the Class Vehicles' second-row seating is
designed defectively because the seats are improperly latched to
their base ("Seat Defect"). Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim the only
warning the second-row seats are unlatched is a "slight appearance
of a small red button," which "can easily be obstructed from the
driver's view by a high-back booster seat." The Seat Defect causes
the Class Vehicles' second-row seats to lurch forward and slam
passengers into the front seats when the Class Vehicles decelerate
or are involved in an accident or collision.
The Defendants marketed the Class Vehicles to families with infants
and young children, who are typically seated in the second row. The
Plaintiffs allege Defendants knew of and concealed the Seat
Defect.
The 2018 and 2019 model years of the Class Vehicles are purportedly
covered by a warranty, which furnishes bumper-to-bumper coverage
for six years or 72,000 miles, whichever comes first, and is fully
transferrable with no loss in coverage, and the 2020 and 2021 model
years are alleged to be covered by a warranty, which covers four
years, or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first, on a
bumper-to-bumper basis. The Defendants excluded coverage for the
Seat Defect from these warranties because the Seat Defect is one of
design, and the warranties apply to defects in "materials and/or
workmanship."
On Feb. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint bringing the following claims on behalf of a nationwide
class: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA")
(Nationwide Count I); (2) fraud by concealment or omission
(Nationwide Count II); (3) negligent misrepresentation (Nationwide
Count III); (4) unjust enrichment (Nationwide Count IV); (5)
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Nationwide Count V)
(also brought on behalf of a New Jersey state sub-class); (6)
breach of express warranty (Nationwide Count VI); and (7) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Nationwide Count VII).
The Plaintiffs also raise claims based on violations of various
state laws on behalf of state sub-classes for California
(California Counts I–VI), Florida (Florida Counts I–III),
Kentucky (Kentucky Counts I–III), Massachusetts (Massachusetts
Counts I–III), Michigan (Michigan Counts I–III), Missouri
(Missouri Counts I–III), New York (New York Counts I–III),
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Counts I–III), Texas (Texas Counts
I–III), and Virginia (Virginia Counts I–III).
On April 15, 2022, VW America filed its motion to dismiss the
Amended Class Action Complaint. On May 13, 2022, VW Chattanooga
filed its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to both motions. On July 15, 2022, VW America and VW
Chattanooga filed their replies, respectively. On July 22, 2022,
VWAG filed its motion to dismiss. On Sept. 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed their opposition to VWAG's motion, and on Nov. 4, 2022, VWAG
replied to the opposition.
VW America, VW Chattanooga, and VWAG all seek to dismiss various
claims asserted in the Amended Complaint on several grounds. VW
Chattanooga argues dismissal is warranted because the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over them. VW America argues the nationwide
class claims, certain state-specific claims, and all claims for
injunctive relief should be dismissed for lack of standing.
VW America also contends the Plaintiffs' express and implied
warranty claims, MMWA claims, statutory and common law fraud
claims, negligent misrepresentation claims, and unjust enrichment
claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. VWAG
argues all breach of express warranty claims should be dismissed
because it did not issue them, that, certain implied warranty and
statutory fraud claims should be dismissed for lack of privity, and
certain false advertising claims should be dismissed for failing to
allege that VWAG advertised the vehicles.
VW America argues, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
nationwide class claims should be dismissed because they lack
standing on behalf of unnamed plaintiffs in states in which they
themselves have suffered no alleged injury.
Judge Martinotti notes that the Plaintiffs allege all Class
Vehicles contain the second-row seat defect resulting in
overpayment for the vehicles at the time of sale or lease and
diminished value of the subject vehicles. Therefore, the Amended
Complaint has sufficiently asserted Plaintiffs Concepcion, Ferrara,
McDonald, Upshur, and Moutra have a cognizable injury-in-fact
traceable to the Seat Defect to confer Article III standing.
Accordingly, Judge Martinotti holds that the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the nationwide claims for lack of standing are granted to
the extent they are premised on state-law claims brought on behalf
of putative class members outside of the eleven states represented
by named Plaintiffs. The Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs
Concepcion, Ferrara, McDonald, Upshur, and Moutra for lack of
standing are denied.
VW Chattanooga challenges the Plaintiffs' basis for personal
jurisdiction, arguing that they fail to allege VW Chattanooga
conducted any purposeful activity in or directed at New Jersey,
much less any purposeful activity that relates to their claims. The
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue VW Chattanooga purposefully
targeted New Jersey by manufacturing and selling the Class Vehicles
to its parent company, VW America, which markets, tests, and
distributes the Class Vehicles from locations in New Jersey.
Judge Martinotti finds that the Plaintiffs have not established VW
Chattanooga purposefully directed its activities at New Jersey and,
therefore, have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating facts
sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over VW Chattanooga.
The Plaintiffs fail to present factual allegations to suggest with
reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite
contacts between VW Chattanooga and the forum state. Accordingly,
Judge Martinotti grants VW Chattanooga's motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.
VW America challenges the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty
claims, MMWA claims, statutory and common law fraud claims,
negligent misrepresentation claims, and unjust enrichment claims
for failure to state a claim. Defendant VWAG adopts VW America's
arguments in their own motion to dismiss the same claims. This
litigation involves 16 named Plaintiffs asserting claims under the
laws of 11 different states--California, Florida, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
The Court finds the Plaintiffs' allegations of unconscionability
insufficient to expand the scope or alter the terms of the Engine
Warranty. Accordingly, VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims are granted.
Judge Martinotti says the allegations in the Amended Complaint, if
taken as true, support that a defect exists notwithstanding it has
yet to manifest in some Class Vehicles. Accordingly, VW America and
VWAG's motions to dismiss the breach of implied warranty claims
under Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey law are denied.
Judge Martinotti also rules that VW America and VWAG's motions to
dismiss the breach of implied warranty claim under Massachusetts
law are denied. VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the breach
of implied warranty claims (i) under Florida, New York, and
Kentucky law for lack of privity are denied, and (ii) under New
Jersey, Florida, and Missouri law for lack of pre-suit notice are
denied.
VW America argues the MMWA claims should be dismissed because there
are only 16 named Plaintiffs and the MMWA requires at least 100
named plaintiffs if the matter is brought as a class action. Here,
Judge Martinotti says, there are only eighteen named plaintiffs.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' MMWA claim does not meet the one-hundred
named plaintiff jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, VW America
and VWAG's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims are
granted.
Judge Martinotti also holds, among other things, that VW America
and VWAG's motions to dismiss the common-law fraudulent concealment
claim under New Jersey and Massachusetts law are granted, and their
motions to dismiss the common law fraud-based claims under
Kentucky, New York, Missouri, and Virginia law are denied.
The Plaintiffs request leave to amend their Complaint to the extent
any of their claims are dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Martinotti
grants the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended
complaint.
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Judge Martinotti rules
that VW Chattanooga's motion to dismiss is for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted; VW America's motion to dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part; and VWAG's motion to dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/zwnpmhpc from PacerMonitor.com.
WELLS FARGO: $3.75-Mil. Class Settlement in Chang Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motions for
attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards for lead
plaintiffs, and for final approval of class action settlement in
the lawsuit entitled ANNIE CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01973-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action alleging Defendant
Wells Fargo aided and abetted an alleged Ponzi scheme (the
"Equitybuild Scheme" or the "Scheme") conceived by non-parties
Jerome and Shaun Cohen and their entities Equitybuild, Inc., and
Equitybuild Finance, LLC, f/k/a Hard Money Company, LLC
(collectively, "Equitybuild").
Equitybuild solicited investors by promising them returns flowing
from real estate purchases, renovations, and developments in
Chicago. The Plaintiffs allege that the Equitybuild Scheme was a
"sham," as the Cohens raised money from investors through
misrepresentations and omissions, siphoned much of it, improperly
commingled it, used it for Ponzi payments to other investors, and
skimmed between 15% and 30% off each investment by taking
undisclosed fees.
In August 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against Equitybuild and the Cohens, charging them with
fraud under U.S. securities laws and misuse and misappropriation of
investor money. That court appointed a Receiver (the "Equitybuild
Receiver") who, among other things, identified and issued notices
to 835 persons or entities "who might have a claim against the
Equitybuild Scheme." The Receiver received claims from all 835
claimants.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 12, 2019, alleging
that Wells Fargo, as the only bank Equitybuild used, "aided and
abetted the Equitybuild Scheme." The Complaint asserted claims for
1) aiding and abetting fraud; 2) aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and 3) negligence. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the
Complaint, which the Court denied as to the first two claims, and
granted, with leave to amend, as to the third. Following
substantial discovery concerning the Plaintiffs' remaining claims,
one unsuccessful mediation before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford
(Ret.) in February 2021, and renewed settlement discussions, the
parties ultimately executed an agreement to settle this case on
June 16, 2022.
The Court granted Preliminary Settlement Approval in December 2022.
The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses,
and Service awards on April 4, 2023, and for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement on June 8, 2023. Both were unopposed. The
parties appeared before the Court for a fairness hearing on the
motions in July, and filed requested supplemental briefing shortly
thereafter.
Among other things, the supplemental briefing provided preliminary
monetary estimates for individual class member recovery, and
confirmed that this settlement would be additive to, not
duplicative of, the Receiver's work in the SEC action.
The parties' Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement" or "SA")
defines the Class as consisting of "all persons and entities who
invested in the Equitybuild Scheme and were damaged thereby."
The Settlement Agreement directed that each member of the class be
sent a notice of the Settlement and a Claim Form. Per the
Agreement, the Notice directed Class Members to a settlement
website containing copies of relevant motions and orders.
The Settlement Fund consists of a payment from Wells Fargo of
$3,750,000 into an escrow account. The gross settlement fund
includes payments to Settlement Class Members, payments for costs
and expenses related to Class Notice, as well as the implementation
and administration of the Settlement, payment of Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses for Class Counsel, and payment of the Service Award
for the Class Representatives, as approved by the Court Settlement
Agreement.
Class members are entitled to relief relative to the dollar amount
they claim (and if necessary, substantiate) as a loss on their
claim forms. With the notice and claims process now completed, the
Plaintiffs have greater visibility into the likely monetary
distribution than they did at the preliminary approval stage. With
588 claimants, class counsel calculate that on a net basis
(assuming this Court approves the proposed costs, fees, and service
awards), the average claimant will receive a monetary recovery of
$4,351.64, with a low of $11.89 based on a claimed loss of $503.31,
to a high of $82,710.87 based on a claimed loss of $3,500,000.
If there is a balance remaining after distribution, it will not
revert to the Defendant; instead, once it is no longer feasible to
make additional distributions, any remaining balance will be
donated to the Victim Connect Resource Center, a non-profit that
assists victims of investment fraud, including specifically Ponzi
schemes.
The Court finds that (i) class members received adequate notice,
and that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable;
(ii) the parties have sufficiently provided the best practicable
notice to class members; (iii) the recovery is significant,
especially when weighed against the litigation risks in this case;
and (iv) the Plaintiffs' counsel had sufficient information to make
an informed decision about the merits of the case.
Since no potential class members have raised concerns or opted out,
the Court finds that the positive reaction of the settlement class
supports approval of the settlement.
In its unopposed motion and consistent with the Settlement
Agreement, class counsel asks the Court to approve an award of
$937,500 in attorneys' fees and $128,723.32 in costs. Counsel also
seeks a $10,000 service award for each of the named Plaintiffs.
The Court finds that the billing rates used by class counsel to
calculate the lodestar are in line with (and in some cases,
significantly discounted from) prevailing rates in this district
for personnel of comparable experience, skill, and reputation. The
Court is also persuaded that the claimed costs are reasonable, were
necessary for prosecution of the action, and should be reimbursed.
In recognition of the favorable settlement, the substantial risks
of litigation, and the financial burden assumed, the Court,
accordingly, grants the request for attorneys' fees and costs, and
awards to class counsel $937,500 in attorneys' fees and $128,723.32
in costs, for a total of $1,066,223.32.
The Court also finds that in this case, where class representatives
each invested between 160-180 hours and where the service award is
only around 2.3 times greater than the average class member's
recovery, a $10,000 service award for each of the named plaintiffs
is justified. The Court grants the requested service of award of
$10,000 for lead plaintiffs Annie Chang, Ann Liu, Oliver Chang,
Melanie Gonzales, and Gary Gonzales.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for final approval of
class action settlement, and grants the motion for attorneys' fees
and incentive award. The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount
of $937,500 and litigation expenses in the amount of $128,723.32.
The Court further awards $10,000 as an incentive award to each of
the five named Plaintiffs.
The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
this Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement. The parties are further
directed to file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or
less within 21 days from the date of this order. The judgment need
not, and should not, repeat the analysis in this order.
Within 21 days after the settlement checks become stale (or, if no
checks are issued, all funds have been paid to class members, cy
pres beneficiaries, and others pursuant to the settlement
agreement), the parties must file a Post-Distribution Accounting.
Counsel are directed to summarize this information in an
easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other
cases. The parties will post the Post-Distribution Accounting,
including the easy-to-read chart, on the settlement website.
The Court may hold a hearing following submission of the parties'
Post-Distribution Accounting.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mve28hyn from PacerMonitor.com.
WILLIAM BURNS: Brewer Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Burns, et al.
The case is styled as Dennis Sheldon Brewer, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. William Burns, Director of Central
Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09605-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
William Joseph Burns is an American diplomat who has served as
director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Biden
administration since March 19, 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ZALKIN LAW FIRM: Deats Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ariana Deats, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C., Case No.
37-02023-00041615-CU-NP-CTL was removed from the Superior Court,
San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Oct. 30, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02005-L-SBC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Electronic Comm. Privacy Act.
The Zalkin Law Firm -- https://www.zalkin.com/ -- is one of the
nation's most trusted & respected civil sexual abuse firms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colin Glenn Furlow, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
sec@colevannote.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin Eli Strauss, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4118
Email: bstrauss@manatt.com
- and -
Brandon P. Reilly, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 312-4330
Fax: (310) 996-6993
Email: breilly@manatt.com
ZUFFA LLC: Court Rejects Revocation Antitrust Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Ultimate Fighting
Championship has lost its U.S. appeals court bid to revoke class
action status from hundreds of martial arts fighters who are suing
for billions of dollars in wages, setting the stage for an April
trial.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 1, 2023 spurned
the UFC's pretrial challenge to a ruling that said more than 1,200
fighters could sue as a group seeking upwards of $1.6 billion in
damages in the Las Vegas case.
U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware's August ruling approved a
class of fighters who competed in live professional UFC-promoted
bouts in the U.S. between December 2010 and June 2017. Boulware
ruled after November 1, 2023's appeals court decision that the
April trial date was set and would not be moved.
The lawsuit claims that Nevada-based Zuffa, which does business as
the UFC, has abused its power to suppress wages in violation of
U.S. antitrust law.
Attorneys for UFC at law firms Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison and Latham & Watkins had asked the San Francisco-based 9th
Circuit to block Boulware's order. UFC has denied any wrongdoing.
The appeals court panel denied UFC's appeal outright without
hearing arguments, saying certain legal factors were not met.
Representatives from UFC and Zuffa's parent, sports and
entertainment company Endeavor Group Holdings (EDR.N), did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
Plaintiffs' attorney Eric Cramer, chairman of Berger Montague, said
the class welcomed the 9th Circuit's ruling and was looking forward
to the scheduled April 8 trial.
In its appeal, UFC's lawyers attacked what they called Boulware's
"unprecedented" decision to certify the class. They said the order
was erroneously based on claims that fighter compensation did not
rise as fast as UFC's revenue.
The plaintiffs' attorneys defended Boulware's order and denied
UFC's claim that it would lead to a "torrent of similar lawsuits."
They told the 9th Circuit that the ruling "applies only to
professional athletes, not ordinary workers."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a friend-of-the-court brief had
asked the 9th Circuit to reverse the class certification order.
The case is Le v. Zuffa LLC, U.S. District Court for the District
Of Nevada, No. 2:15-cv-01045. [GN]
*********
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 ***