/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240408.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 8, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 71 Headlines ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Parties Must File Trial Schedule, Court Says ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Partial Final Judgment Granted in Snow Class Suit ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Court OK's Parties' Bid to Seal Documents AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Chiu Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action AMAZON.COM: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Partly Granted AMERICAN BANKERS: Dahl Must File Class Cert Response by April 30 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Debit, Credit Cards' Fees AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Declaration ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court Probes Class Suit Certification AVALARA INC: Court Dismisses Putative Shareholders' Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit BARCLAYS PLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Putative Class Action BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due August 16 BOPPY COMPANY: Scricca Bid to Compel Discovery Production Tossed CHEMOURS COMPANY: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20 CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Claims CINCINNATI BELL: Bid to Strike Allegations Denied in Kemen Suit COLTER ENERGY: Parties Seeks to Extend Zaarour Class Cert Response CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd COOK CANADA: Agrees to Settle IVC Filter Products Class Action DAVE'S KILLER: Swartz Considers Sealing Confidential Docs DFL PIZZA: Nagel Seeks Extension of Time to File Response Briefs DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Seeks Conditional Collective Certification EF INSTITUTE: Grabovksy Plaintiffs Must File Reply by April 17 EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit EXPEDIA GROUP: Court Dismisses Motion to Certify False Ads' Suit FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Allergy Medication FANNIE MAE: Final Judgment Entered in Stock Purchase Deal Lawsuit FEDERAL HOUSING: Final Judgment Entered in Fairholme Stock Suit GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert. Bid in Silverstein Due Sept. 19 GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Summary Judgment Bid vs Woodhams Partly Granted GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Parties Seek Approval of Class Cert. Deadline GRAND AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 13 GREENSBORO COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over Lax Cybersecurity Measures HANDI-FOIL CORP: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal HANDI-FOIL: Osdoby Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action HARVEST CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder's Class Action HEALTH CADDIES: Cooper Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification HEALTH FIRST: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 21 HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Frechete Class Suit HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Chiarito Continued to Oct. 31 IKEA NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Countertop Products INMAR BRAND: Holmes Loses Bid for Class Certification JBS USA: Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint by April 22 JKS HOME: Class Cert. Bids in Kayce Suit Due Jan. 27, 2025 JRK PROPERTY: Peebles Suit Seeks Class Certification KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Seeks to Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 26 LENNAR CORPORATION: Tuso Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice LIVEPERSON INC: Ct. Appoints Damri as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit LLOYD AUSTIN: Arzamendi Suit Seeks Class Certification LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 10, 2025 LULIFAMA.COM: Epstein Bid to Dismiss Pop Complaint OK'd MAN SE: Munich Court Overturns Truck Cartel Class Action Dismissal MANITOBA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit Over Child Welfare System MARK CUBAN: Seeks April 10 Extension to File Response MONARCH RECOVERY: Bids for Summary Judgment Tossed in Goldring MYTHICAL VENTURE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 13 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Suit Seeks $939 Million in Additional Damages NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Approves Nov. 28, 2023 Report & Recommendation PARKMOBILE LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Class Cert Filing in Lujano Modified to Oct. 7 PLANTRONICS INC: Seeks to Seal Confidential Class Cert Materials PRO CUSTOM: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6 PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Ct. Awards CEF $39K in Atty's Fees RBS CITIZENS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 18 REAL ESTATE ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Competitive Conduct REALNETWORKS INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Must File Updated Joint Status Report ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Virtual Gambling RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification SYMETRA LIFE: Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by April 26 T-MOBILE USA: Gets Court OK to Proceed an Appeal in Antitrust Suit T.L. CANNON: Dees Must File Class Cert Reply by April 24 TD BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement TEVA CANADA: Appeals Court Dismisses Valsartan Recall Class Action THOMAS GILES: Federal Claims Dismissed with Prejudice in Oldaker TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Caper, Tran Suits TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Sur-Reply TRICIDA INC: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seek to Certify Class of Students TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seeks to Seal Confidential Docs TULANE UNIV: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Opposition Date TWO JINN: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by April 26 UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Perissa Suit Due Dec. 6 UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in National Suit Gets Final Nod UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Seeks Reconsideration of March 13 Order UPS STORE: Must File Any Reply by April 8 VARSITY BRANDS: Indirect Purchasers Can Add Class Rep in Jones VISA USA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Merchant Interchange Fees WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Settles False Advertising Suit for $28.5-Mil. WELLS FARGO: Court Appoints Zimmerman Law as Co-Lead Class Counsel WOODSTREAM CORP: Maroney Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ********* ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Parties Must File Trial Schedule, Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACLYN MOHRBACHER, et al., v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order directing the parties to jointly file by April 18, 2024, a proposed pretrial and trial schedule based on a trial date in Nov. 2024. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs offer only the individual experiences of a small number of pregnant inmates. This is enough to deny certification of any of the proposed classes for failure to satisfy the elements of Rule 23(a). The Plaintiffs have also not demonstrated that the putative class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable to all of them for purposes of Rule 23(b)(2), or that common questions of law or fact predominate over individuals ones for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3)." The plaintiffs alleged a broad array of claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of female inmates about the treatment of women incarcerated in the Santa Rita Jail operated by defendant Alameda County Sheriff's Office (ACSO). The claims against Aramark involved food services and the adequacy of nutrition provided to inmates. At the Court's direction, the Plaintiffs amended their motion to certify a class to address the sole remaining defendant, the California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), which provides jail medical services under contract with ACSO. The only claims remaining in the case concern the medical care of pregnant women inmates. The main class proposed by plaintiffs, and the only one specifically defined in the motion, is for "all current and future females who were pregnant during their incarcerated [sic] in Santa Rita Jail since January, 2017." The Plaintiffs seek to certify this class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs also mention a putative "damages class" of "pregnant women" and a "sub-class of pregnant women with high risk pregnancies," both of which are said to be appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9U1V3e at no extra charge.[CC] ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Partial Final Judgment Granted in Snow Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting joint stipulated request for order entering partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). On Feb. 21, 2024, the Court entered an order granting summary judgment for Align on Plaintiffs' claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and related state law claims. The Court's order on Plaintiffs' Section 2 claim did not affect Plaintiffs' separate claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which remains before the Court. Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6g5WLD at no extra charge.[CC] ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Court OK's Parties' Bid to Seal Documents ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS, LLC, COOKWARE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:21-mc-00491-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas Ranjan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs and Defendants All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC and Groupe SEB USA, Inc.'s joint motion to seal. The Court said that All-Clad has met its burden to rebut the presumptive right of access under both the common law and the First Amendment, and it may redact the information from any public filings and submit an unredacted version to the Court under seal. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7MKty at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Chiu Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE VACCARO and JENNIFER CHIU, v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-11852-GC-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff Chiu ask the Court granting their renewed motion to certify class action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of: "All current and former hourly fulfillment center employees who worked for the Defendant in New Jersey and who, during at least one workweek from two (2) years prior to the original date of the filing of the Complaint, May 11, 2016, through the present, worked at least 40 hours according to the Defendant's timekeeping system." The Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the defined class's claims set forth in Counts I of the Second Amended Complaint. -- appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC as class counsel and herself as class representative. Amazon.com. offers towing mirrors, air suspension, retainer clips kits, and wheel chocks. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b5dKrd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 AMAZON.COM: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEILANI KRYZHANOVSKIY, PATRICIA SALAZAR, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy for the LWDA, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01292-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an order granting in part motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement: 1. A hearing on the Final Approval of the settlement shall be held before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe in Courtroom 8 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California located at 2500 Tulare Street, Sixth Floor, Fresno, California, 93721 on Sept. 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. to determine: whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether said Settlement should be finally approved by the Court; 2. The following persons are conditionally certified as Class Members solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in this matter: All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in California between July 22, 2017 and Nov. 7, 2023 who received a Signing Bonus and/or On Sign Bonus in the same workweek as he/she worked overtime, including double-time (the "Settlement Class"); 3. The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement, which provides for a Gross Settlement Fund of $3,000,000 for approximately 3,232 Class Members, appears to be within the range of reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be given final approval by this Court; 4. The Court hereby preliminarily approves, in part, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $750,000.00 and costs in an amount up to $30,000.00 to be paid out of the Maximum Settlement Amount. 5. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Class Representative Enhancement Payment in the total amount of $17,500.00 to be paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund; 6. Atticus Class Action Administration is appointed to act as the Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement; 7. Plaintiffs Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar are appointed the Class Representatives and the representatives of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; 8. Plaintiffs' Counsel, Mayall Hurley, P.C. and the Law Offices of Mark S. Adams, are appointed Class Counsel; and 9. The settlement of Plaintiffs’ California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act claim is fair and reasonable, and the Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and release of that claim as well as the PAGA Allocation in the amount of $100,000, which includes payment to the LWDA and to the PAGA Settlement Class Members. Amazon.com Services LLC provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pfWQox at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN BANKERS: Dahl Must File Class Cert Response by April 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dahl v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 3:23-cv-08584 (D. Ariz., Filed Oct. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend briefing deadlines. -- The Plaintiff's response to defendant's April 30, 2024 motion to dismiss and motion deny class certification shall be due no later than: -- The Defendant's reply in support of its June 14, 2024 motions shall be due no later than: The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. American Bankers provides specialty credit-related insurance products.[CC] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Debit, Credit Cards' Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports American Express finds itself embroiled in a legal battle as a proposed class action lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island federal court, alleges the company of overcharging thousands of US merchants for credit and debit card fees on consumer transactions. The lawsuit, initiated by ten retail plaintiffs including a delicatessen, fine clothier, florist, and furniture store, seeks a court order to halt American Express policies that allegedly breach US antitrust law, as reported by Reuters. At the crux of the dispute are American Express's purported use of "non-discrimination provisions" to prevent merchants from steering customers towards payment cards with lower transaction fees, thus constraining competition, according to the lawsuit. American Express has yet to respond to requests for comment on the matter. The merchants' grievances echo similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard in a consolidated legal action in Brooklyn federal court regarding payment card fees. Notably, Visa and Mastercard had abandoned regulations preventing merchants from encouraging the use of lower-cost payment methods by the end of 2013, as highlighted in the lawsuit. Last year, a federal appeals court in Manhattan upheld a substantial $5.6 billion settlement involving approximately 12 million retailers against Visa and Mastercard. Despite this, ongoing litigation against the two companies persists. The lawsuit singles out American Express, arguing that its rules exclusively prohibit U.S. merchants from employing discounts, surcharges, verbal prompting, signage, and other tactics to incentivize customers to use more economical payment cards. Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that binding arbitration clauses between American Express and merchants have impeded efforts to resolve their claims. Initially, the 5,155 merchants involved in the lawsuit pursued individual claims through arbitration. However, American Express purportedly refused to pay a $16 million arbitration invoice, resulting in the closure of these cases, as outlined in the lawsuit. Given American Express's alleged default in the arbitration process, the plaintiffs assert that the company cannot now prevent them from pursuing their claims in a U.S. court. The lawsuit marks another chapter in the ongoing legal saga surrounding payment card fees and merchant practices, underscoring the complexities of the financial landscape and the regulatory challenges within it. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Declaration -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN CADENA, et al., v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (AHM), et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), AHM asks the Court to enter an order that the confidential information described in the Hunter Supplemental Declaration be maintained under seal. With respect to the portions of Plaintiffs' memorandum of points and authorities AHM seeks to deal, the Plaintiffs argue AHM was required to do something more but their argument is largely conclusory. As many courts have, AHM respectfully submits that to the extent the Court holds the exhibits Plaintiffs seek to unseal merit sealing, it also find the portions of Plaintiffs' memorandum that purport to quote from and describe their contents also be sealed. The Plaintiffs seek to unseal 55 of the total of 128 exhibits they submitted in support of their motion for class certification, 21 of which are not even cited by Plaintiffs in their motion for class certification and therefore not relevant or related to the merits of their motion. American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJfsev at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Darlene M. Cho, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com mmallow@shb.com dcho@shb.com ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court Probes Class Suit Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that it's never a happy development for plaintiffs when a federal appeals court agrees to review a trial judge's decision to certify an investor class to pursue securities fraud claims. I'd argue that these mid-case, or interlocutory appeals, are even more perilous for shareholders since the U.S. Supreme Court held, opens new tab in 2021's Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers Retirement System that trial judges should consider "all probative evidence" in weighing whether defendants have managed to rebut the presumption that their alleged fraud impacted the company's share price. Look, for instance, at what happened when the Goldman Sachs case returned to lower courts after the Supreme Court issued its decision. The trial judge recertified the class for a third time, but Goldman persuaded the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant its third interlocutory appeal to review the decision. The third time proved the charm for the bank: The appeals court decertified the class, holding, as I've reported, that there was too wide a gap between Goldman's general statements about conflict management and subsequent revelations about conflicts in specific collateralized debt deals to support shareholders' theory that the bank's alleged misrepresentations propped up its share price. Now defense lawyers for Anadarko Petroleum are hoping that the Supreme Court's Goldman ruling prompts the 5th Circuit to undo the certification of a class of shareholders alleging that the company covered up disappointing drilling results in a much-ballyhooed oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico. The 5th Circuit will hear oral argument next week on Anadarko's contention, opens new tab that U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge of Houston improperly certified the class based on expert evidence first introduced in shareholders' reply brief in support of class certification. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, which represents Anadarko (now part of Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N), opens new tab) argued in its brief to the right-leaning appellate court that under the Goldman Sachs standard, Eskridge should have allowed the company to submit a sur-reply brief after shareholders disclosed an expert report on the price impact of Anadarko's alleged misrepresentation in their brief responding the company's opposition to class certification. As is usual in securities fraud class actions, the details of the case are unique and complex. Shareholder lawyers from Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd told the 5th Circuit in their brief, opens new tab that the full trial court record proves that Eskridge properly denied Anadarko's motion to submit a sur-reply brief, as well as its motions to exclude the expert report on price impact and to reconsider class certification. The judge, according to Robbins Geller, gave Anadarko all of the leeway it was entitled to, so the appeals court cannot conclude that he abused his discretion. But because Anadarko and Cravath pitched, opens new tab the interlocutory appeal as a chance for the 5th Circuit to solve a recurring problem in shareholder fraud class actions -- arguing that, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Goldman Sachs decision, the court should use this case to confirm defendants' right to respond to new shareholders' evidence -- the securities bar should be paying attention. Anadarko counsel Kevin Orsini of Cravath did not respond to my query. Shareholder lawyer Joe Daley of Robbins Geller declined to comment. Shareholders allege that Anadarko's share price fell by about 8% in May 2017 after the company disclosed a $902 million write-down on its investment in the Shenandoah oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico after a so-called appraisal well came up dry. Plaintiffs' lawyers contend that Anadarko hid warnings from its own engineers and geoscientists, who had been predicting for years that the field would not measure up to Anadarko's hype. Anadarko, meanwhile, maintains that its share price fell on that day for a reason wholly unrelated to the Shenandoah field. At around the same time that the company disclosed the $902 million write-down, Colorado officials announced that Anadarko's gas operations were responsible for the deadly explosion of a home in Firestone, Colorado -- and that all oil and gas companies in the state would be required to conduct additional safety checks. The Colorado announcement, according to Anadarko, "led to significant regulatory uncertainty," which, in turn, pushed its share price lower. Anadarko did not submit an expert event study of its share price to refute shareholders' claims in its brief opposing class certification. It instead cited its expert's analysis of the share prices of its partners in the Shenandoah project and its Colorado oil and gas competitors to argue that the Colorado news, not the Shenandoah write-down, impacted the market for its shares. In response, Robbins Geller cited an Anadarko-specific event study by its expert, who refuted the conclusions of the company's expert. Anadarko contested the shareholders' event study in a Daubert motion and also asked for a chance to counter its findings in a sur-reply brief. Eskridge denied both requests, concluding that the shareholder study was a legitimate rebuttal to Anadarko's arguments. Robbins Geller told the 5th Circuit that Anadarko should not get a second chance based on its unsuccessful strategy of submitting event studies of the company's partners and competitors instead of the company itself. Anadarko said Eskridge erred grievously in basing his class certification decision on evidence introduced in a reply brief without giving the company a fair shot to refute it. The company is asking the appeals court not only to remand the case to the trial court with instructions to reconsider class certification in light of Anadarko's price impact evidence but to go even farther and hold that the class cannot be certified. The case will be heard by Judges Carolyn King, James Ho and Kurt Engelhardt. [GN] AVALARA INC: Court Dismisses Putative Shareholders' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on March 1, 2024, Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed with prejudice a putative shareholders' class action against a software company (the "Company") and its Board of Directors ("Board"), alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Sohovich v. Avalara, Inc., No. C22-1580 MJP (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the Company and its Board misled investors to vote to approve its $8.4 billion sale -- priced at $93.50 per share -- allegedly by deflating its financial projections and misrepresenting the Company's performance and outlook in the proxy statement ("Proxy"). The Court found that plaintiff failed to adequately plead the falsity of any one of the four misstatements and dismissed it with prejudice. The Company, a leading provider of cloud-based tax compliance software, grew at a rapid rate from 2015 through 2021, in large part due to its ability to acquire other similar companies and, therefore, expand its client base. According to the complaint, in approximately April 2022, a decline in stock price allegedly attracted interest from private equity firms looking to buy the Company. In response, the Company began a sale process in April 2022 pursuant to which it prepared financial projections that the Board approved. In August 2022, the Board approved a merger agreement priced at $93.50 per share. The Proxy circulated to Company shareholders in advance of the vote on the sale allegedly contained four misstatements to entice shareholders to vote to approve the sale. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that the Proxy (i) validated financial projections that allegedly were understated, (ii) allegedly misstated that the Company's revenues fell below "management's expectations" when they aligned with "public guidance," (iii) allegedly conveyed that weaknesses and challenges -- namely the loss of a key partner and changing market conditions -- that the Company and Board had previously downplayed, beleaguered the Company, and (iv) allegedly misrepresented a shareholder services firm approval of the sale. The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice concluding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible Section 14(a) claim and that additional amendments would be futile. First, the Court found that plaintiff's allegation that the Company's financial projections omitted projected revenues from future acquisitions failed to render those projections objectively false because the Company had no planned acquisitions at the time and did not consider such inorganic growth in preparing similar forecasts in the past. Second, the Court opined that it could at once be true that the Company's Q2 2022 results fell below "management's expectations," as stated in the Proxy, and that those results also were within range of management's "public guidance." Because plaintiff did not allege that "management's expectations" are interchangeable with management's "public guidance," the Court found plaintiff failed to plead that the Proxy's statements about the Company's Q2 2022 results were objectively false. Third, the Court found that plaintiff failed to identify any numerically-specific prior statements that conflicted with the Proxy's statements about the Company's weaknesses and risks, including with respect to the loss of one of the Company's key partners and deteriorating market conditions. Lastly, the Court held that the Company and Board had not misled shareholders to believe a particular shareholder services firm recommended without reservation the Company's sale by cherry picking only the positive portions of the somewhat critical report in the Schedule 14A filed with the SEC. The Court found significant that the firm's report in its entirety -- including the portions thereof criticizing the deal and qualifying the firm's support as cautionary -- was available publicly and thus part of the "total mix of information available" to investors. The Court also dismissed the Section 20(a) claims because plaintiff did not adequately allege a single predicate violation of Section 14(a). [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edvard Pettersson, writing fo Courthouse News Services, reports that Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon won dismissal of a class action by homeowners who claimed the banks are engaged in a racketeering scheme that uses fraudulent documents to foreclose on their homes. U.S. District Judge Jill Otake in Honolulu granted the banks' request to dismiss the claims with prejudice, denying the eight names plaintiffs another a chance to amend their lawsuit. The judge last year had given the plaintiffs, homeowners in Hawaii and Florida, permission to file an amended complaint because their initial attempt to articulate their claims had been too confusing to proceed. However, the judge said, their renewed effort didn't improve on the original and was again a "lengthy, oft-confusing pleading that continues to impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges." The amended complaint, according to Otake, was replete with irrelevant facts, argumentative statements that didn't constitute factual claims and lengthy recitations that often didn't involve the two defendant banks or even relate to a civil racketeering claim. That alone would have been grounds to dismiss the lawsuit, the judge said. However, Otake continued, the racketeering claim should also be thrown out because it was based on the banks' foreclosure proceedings in state courts, and litigation activity by itself isn't sufficient to support a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. "The court previously considered and decided the first round of dispositive motions practice on similar grounds, and admonished plaintiffs about the consequences of failing to allege adequate factual allegations in an amended complaint," the judge said. "Yet the crux of the legal deficiency in the complaint -- acts constituting litigation activity -- was not addressed or rectified by the first amended complaint." Attorneys for the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. The plaintiffs claimed that Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon deliberately targeted people of color in Hawaii and Florida for home loans that the bank knew they would never be able to pay back. Three of the five Hawaii plaintiffs are of Native Hawaiian descent and the three Florida plaintiffs are women of color. They also claimed they had been or were currently being foreclosed on, some for nearly two decades, as part of the bank's scheme to use fraudulent documentation to initiate a false foreclosure. [GN] BARCLAYS PLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Putative Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ mondaq.com reports that on February 23, 2024, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a financial institution and certain of its executives. In re Barclays PLC Sec. Litig., 2024 WL 757385 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the company had issued securities in excess of what it had registered for with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which allegedly rendered misleading certain of its statements regarding compliance with securities laws and internal controls. Id. While the Court held that certain alleged misrepresentations were adequately pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed claims as to statements made after the alleged over-issuances were disclosed and rejected plaintiff's control person liability theory as to certain defendants. The Court first considered the company's general statements relating to internal controls before the alleged over-issuances were revealed, including that the company was "committed to operating within a strong system of internal control" and had "frameworks, policies and standards" that enabled the company "to meet regulators' expectations relating to internal control and assurance." Id. at *11. The Court rejected defendants' argument that these statements were too "simple and generic" to be actionable, explaining that, according to the complaint's allegations, the company allegedly did not have any control mechanism in place to prevent the over-issuance of securities and the supposed omission of this lack of a control system was adequately alleged to be material. Id. at *12. The Court stressed that, in its view, the allegations were not merely that the company's systems underperformed; rather, the allegations were that no system for tracking the company's securities issuances existed at all. The Court further held that because it concluded that these statements were actionable, plaintiff could also pursue claims challenging the company's Exchange Act compliance certifications. Id. at *13. However, the Court rejected plaintiff's challenges to statements made after the alleged over‑issuances were publicly disclosed. First, the Court held that the company's statements regarding its initial assessment of the impact of the alleged over-issuances -- which allegedly turned out to be an underestimate -- were not actionable. Id. at *14. The Court observed that there were no allegations that, at the time these statements were made, the company had discovered information that contradicted its statements. Id. The Court also determined that these statements were not adequately alleged to be materially false, given that these statements, according to the Court, "underscored the [c]ompany's lack of a system" for tracking the securities at issue and also expressly disclosed that the assessment reflected the company's "best estimate" at the time. Id. at *14–15. Second, the Court held that the company's statement announcing the results of an investigation by outside counsel -- which allegedly failed to disclose that the company's board had yet to issue its final report -- was not actionable. Id. at *15. The Court concluded that the company did inform investors that the outside counsel report would be used by the company to determine whether action should be taken against company executives, and that the alleged omission of other information was not materially misleading. Id. In addition, the Court determined that plaintiff adequately alleged, for the challenged statements made before the alleged over-issuances were revealed, that defendants acted with scienter on a theory of recklessness. In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that, according to the complaint's allegations, the company allegedly acknowledged in prior correspondence sent to the SEC that its status as a Well-Known Seasoned Issuer ("WKSI") -- which allowed it to issue securities subject to "more lenient communications and registration rules and regulations" (id. at *2) -- was "importan[t]" to the company "in meeting its capital and funding requirements" and that losing this status would "curtail important channels of communication to investors," hurt the company's ability to respond to "current regulatory and market conditions and uncertainties that are significantly transforming the landscape for financial institutions like [the company]," and harm "the speed at which [the company] could strengthen its capital position if require[d] to do so" by a regulator. Id. at *18. Thus, the Court concluded that, in its view, defendants were adequately alleged to be reckless in failing to implement controls regarding shelf issuances after the company lost its WKSI status. Id. at *18. The Court further explained that its conclusion in this regard was supported by the complaint's allegations regarding the supposed magnitude of the alleged over‑issuances and the allegation that they were supposedly discovered through a basic inquiry made to the company's legal department by a low-level employee. Id. at *19. The Court also held plaintiff had adequately pleaded loss causation because the emergence of the company's allegedly inadequate controls was plausibly alleged to have caused the company's stock price to fall. Id. at *21. Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiff's control person claims against the company's board chair and against the company's subsidiary that was allegedly responsible for the alleged over‑issuances. As for the chair, the Court held that his status as chair did not "demonstrate actual control over the company and the incident in question," nor was he adequately alleged to have been culpable in the alleged over-issuances. Id. at *22. As for the corporate subsidiary, the Court concluded that plaintiff alleged no facts suggesting the subsidiary exerted control over its corporate parent or that it had any control over the statements the Court held were actionable. Id. [GN] BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due August 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Browning v. Bassett Healthcare Network, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order as follows: -- Deadline for motions to join parties or May 6, 2024 amend the pleadings, other than conditional or class certification motions, is: -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification Aug. 16, 2024 conditional certification under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 216(b) shall be made on or before: -- Counsel is directed to file a status report by: July 17, 2024 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bassett is an integrated health system.[CC] BOPPY COMPANY: Scricca Bid to Compel Discovery Production Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Scricca, et al., v. The Boppy Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01497-RNC (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Farrish entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery production to their first set of requests for production to defendant the Boppy Company. The parties briefed and argued the question of whether the Court should compel the production of all written discovery in six other cases to which Boppy is a party. The Court has concluded that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing the relevance of all the materials they seek, and that the requests are overbroad as formulated. The denial is of course without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to serve direct requests for non-privileged information relevant to the specific claims and defenses asserted in this case, said the Court. The case arises out of the tragic death of four-month-old Angelise Rodriguez. Boppy manufactured and sold an infant product called the "Newborn Lounger." Baby Angelise died on Nov. 8, 2019, and her parents contend that she was asphyxiated by the lounger. Boppy provides comfort products for mother and baby. A copy of the Court's ruling dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tEbaI8 at no extra charge.[CC] CHEMOURS COMPANY: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired The Chemours Company ("Chemours" or the "Company") (NYSE: CC) common stock between February 10, 2023 and February 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Chemours investors have until May 20, 2024 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On February 13, 2024, after the market closed, Chemours disclosed that it was postponing the release of its financial results and conference call related to its fourth quarter and full year 2023. The Company further clarified, stating that it was delaying its results because Chemours is "evaluating its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023 with respect to maintaining effective controls related to information and communications," and because the Company's Audit Committee "needs additional time to complete a related internal review." On this news, Chemours' stock price fell $3.85, or 12.6%, to close at $26.64 per share on February 14, 2024, thereby injuring investors. Then, on February 29, 2024, Chemours announced that its CEO, CFO, and Controller had been placed on "administrative leave" pending the completion of an internal review, including reviewing reports made to the Chemours Ethics Hotline. Additionally, the Company delayed its earnings report and disclosed that it is "evaluating one or more potential material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting[.]" On this news, Chemours' stock price fell $9.05, or 31.5%, to close at $19.67 on February 29, 2024, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) certain of the Company's senior executive officers manipulated Free Cash Flow targets as a means to maximize additional cash and stock incentive compensation applicable to executive officers pursuant to the Company's AIPs and LTIPs; (2) the Company's accounting practices and procedures, including its internal control over financial reporting, were deficient; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Chemours securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 20, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Chemours securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 info@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against The Children's Place, Inc. ("The Children's Place" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLCE). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether The Children's Place and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices You have until April 29, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired The Children's Place securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On February 9, 2024, before the market opened, The Children's Place announced its preliminary fourth quarter fiscal year 2023 financial results. Therein, the Company revealed that it now expected fourth quarter net sales between $454 million and $456 million, falling short of previously issued guidance. The Company also disclosed that it expected to incur an adjusted operating loss in the fourth quarter in range of (9.0%) to (8.0%) of net sales, which reflected the impact of "lower than expected merchandise margins resulting from more aggressive promotions in an effort to maximize sales, higher than anticipated split shipments to meet customer e-commerce demand, and increased inventory valuation adjustment." On this news, The Children's Place's share price fell $7.25, or 37%, to close at $12.51 per share on February 9, 2024 Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] CINCINNATI BELL: Bid to Strike Allegations Denied in Kemen Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN KEMEN, v. CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00152-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order denying the motion to dismiss and/or strike certain improper allegations from the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. In short, Cincinnati Bell has failed to show that the allegations with which it takes issue are necessarily immaterial to this case. And the cases it cites do not persuade the Court otherwise, the Court says. Whether the allegations, if capable of being established by competent evidence or otherwise proven, end up being relevant to the matter at hand is a different question, and one the Court does not answer now. But as things stand, the Court will not strike the allegations about the job posting, the Indeed reviews, or the Cincinnati Bell's Better Business Bureau (BBB) complaints, the Court adds. The case is about unsolicited telemarketing calls—or as they are more commonly known, spam calls. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), by making unwanted telemarketing calls to her cell phone. The Second Amended Complaint proposes the following "Internal Do Not Call Class": All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of the Defendant) called more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) for substantially the same reason the Defendant called the Plaintiff, including (4) at least one call after they requested that Defendant stop calling. It also excludes various persons from that definition. And it notes that "Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following appropriate discovery." Cincinnati Bell provides telecommunications services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MqYXVt at no extra charge.[CC] COLTER ENERGY: Parties Seeks to Extend Zaarour Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADHAM ZAAROUR, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. COLTER ENERGY SERVICES, USA INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00443-GMN-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter and order extending the Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, filed on March 12, 2024, until April 16, 2024. 1. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, the Defendant states that is the first stipulation or request for extension of time to file the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. 2. On March 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his original collective action complaint and jury demand. 3. On March 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification pursuant to 29. U.S.C. section 216(b) and issuance of court-authorized notice. 4. The Defendant seeks additional time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. If the Defendant is required to respond by the current deadline of March 25, 2024, Defendant will need to oppose a lengthy motion raising complex issues only thirteen days after learning about the existence of this lawsuit and before Defendant’s initial pleading is due. Colter is a flowback & production testing equipment and service provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GG5Dm2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: esther@rodriguezlaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: John T. Keating, Esq. KEATING LAW GROUP 9130 W. Russell Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 228-6800 E-mail: jkeating@keatinglg.com - and - Gillian G. O'Hara, Esq. Jason Stitt, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 1650 Farnam, The Omaha Building Omaha, NE 68102 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 E-mail: Gigi.Ohara@KutakRock.com Jason.Stitt@Kutakrock.com CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Helwig, v. Concentrix Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00920-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge David Ruiz entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to certify a Rule 23 Class Action, and -- denying Defendant's motion to strike class allegations. The Court said that because it finds appropriate to certify a class, Defendant's motion to strike class allegations is denied. In summary, the Plaintiff's request to have a class certified is denied in part and granted in part. Instead, the Court certifies a more limited class. The Court's modification is reflected in bold: Concentrix engages in the provision of technology-infused customer experience (CX) solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QLwor6 at no extra charge.[CC] COOK CANADA: Agrees to Settle IVC Filter Products Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Finance reports that a Canada-wide Settlement Agreement was recently reached in a class action against Cook (Canada) Inc., Cook Incorporated, and William Cook Europe APS ("Cook") related to certain inferior vena cava filter products ("IVC Filter Products") marketed and sold by Cook (Canada) Inc., Cook Incorporated, and William Cook Europe APS ("Cook"). IVC filters are devices designed to filter blood clots which may otherwise travel to the heart and/or lungs. Optionally retrievable IVC filters are a type of filter that may be removed if medically advisable to do so after a patient is no longer at risk of a pulmonary embolism. The Class Action alleges that Cook marketed and sold IVC Filter Products without properly warning of the alleged increased risks of complications and injuries. Cook denies the allegations and all liability whatsoever, and the Court did not come to a decision as to who was right. Proposed Settlement The proposed Settlement applies to every person who is or was a resident of Canada who was implanted with a Cook IVC Filter Product at any time on or before January 8, 2020, which was manufactured, marketed and/or sold or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce in Canada by Cook, and their family members. For greater certainty, the residency requirement for class membership relates to the time of the placement of the Cook IVC Filter Product. Primary Class Members must have had a Cook IVC Filter Product placed in Canada but are not required to reside in Canada at present. You can no longer opt out of the Class Action. Under the Settlement, Cook will provide a claims-made settlement of up to (a) $54,000 CAD for each Qualifying Fracture Claimant, (b) $81,000 CAD for each Qualifying Death Claimant, and (c) $169,500 CAD for each Qualifying Open Surgery Claimant, with a pro rata reduction of the amount of each payment to the extent that the total amount of the claims in categories (a), (b) and (c) above exceed $4,062,720 CAD. Also, a payment in the amount of $2,708,480 CAD will be made for Class Counsel to pay costs, including administration costs, notice plan costs, class counsel fees, interest, applicable taxes, and certain other qualified claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The final value of the compensation will not be determined until the end of the claim period. For complete details regarding the proposed Settlement, including details on the fees and disbursements Class Counsel are seeking, please consult the notice available at www.ivcsettlement.ca, in English and fr.ivcsettlement.ca, in French. Information related to the proceeding is also accessible at www.ivcsettlement.ca. Court Approval The proposed Settlement must be approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice before it becomes effective. A hearing to approve the Settlement will be held on May 17, 2024 at 10:00 AM ET, during which the Court will consider whether the proposed Settlement, the proposed method for distributing the Settlement, and Class Counsel's fees and disbursements are each fair and reasonable and should be approved. Those interested in attending may visit www.ivcsettlement.ca to find out how the hearing will be conducted. You can object to the proposed Settlement, the method of distributing the Settlement, or Class Counsel fees and attend the hearing to present that objection. Objections must be submitted in writing to Class Counsel on or before May 3, 2024. Class Counsel will file all objections with the Court. You may also attend the hearing to make oral submissions. [GN] DAVE'S KILLER: Swartz Considers Sealing Confidential Docs --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SWARTZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. DAVE'S KILLER BREAD, INC. and FLOWERS FOODS, INC.,Case No. 4:21-cv-10053-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff files an administrative motion to consider whether material should be sealed. Specifically, the Plaintiff said that information derived from material designated confidential appears at: -- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification at Page 9, line 17 -- Declaration of Hayley Reynolds at: Exhibit A at 33:3-11 (p. 114 of transcript) Exhibit C (entire exhibit) Exhibit D at 11:7-22 The Plaintiff makes this motion to seal portions of Exhibit A and D to the Reynolds Declaration and the entirety of Exhibit C to the Reynolds Declaration at the request of Defendants pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7-11 and 79-5. In accordance with the local rules, Defendants will identify the specific portions of the documents that they seek to seal, and which remaining portions can be filed in a redacted public version. Dave's offers various of homemade breads. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ncnx8w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. Patrick Brandon, Esq. Matthew T. McCrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com patrick@gutridesafier.com matt@gutridesafier.com DFL PIZZA: Nagel Seeks Extension of Time to File Response Briefs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN NAGEL, v. DFL PIZZA, LLC, JAY FEAVEL, CHARLES S. DOLAN, JOHN DOE CORPS. 1-10 and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-00946-DDD-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to extend the deadlines to file his responses in opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's individual and class claims under Colorado Law, motion to deny class certification and/or strike Plaintiff's class allegations as to the Arbitration Employees, and motion to stay class discovery by two weeks, up to and including April 8, 2024. 1. The Plaintiff's responses to the Defendants' motions are presently due to be filed on March 25, 2024. 2. A two-week extension, up to and including April 8, 2024, is needed due to the demands of ongoing litigation practice. 3. This is the Plaintiff's first request for an extension and this extension is not sought for the purpose of delay. 4. The Plaintiff's counsel reasonably believe that a two week extension will provide them sufficient time to complete and file the reply brief. 5. Compliance with D. Colo. Local Rule 7.1(a): Counsel for the parties have conferred regarding this request for extension and the Defendants have expressed no objection thereto. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cILHgI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314)997-9150 ext. 2 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - David Lichtenstein, Esq. LIVELIHOOD LAW, LLC 12015 East 46th Avenue, Suite 240 Denver, CO 80239 Telephone: (720) 465-6972 E-mail: drl@livelihoodlaw.com DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE ISAYEVA and KAHOLY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, v. DIAMOND BRACES, an unincorporated entity, association, or affiliation, ORTHOCLUB, P.C., d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, and OLEG DRUT, Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b). Diamond Braces specializes in orthodontic services, providing braces and Invisalign treatments to correct dental misalignments. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RK6g5N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 EF INSTITUTE: Grabovksy Plaintiffs Must File Reply by April 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11740 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 23, 2020), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order that the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification is to be filed by April 17, 2024. -- Hearing date of April 24, 2024, remains in place. -- Opposition to motion for class certification not to exceed 30 pages. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. EF provides educational services.[CC] EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Globe New Wire reports that a shareholder class action has been filed against Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. f/k/a NewHold Investment Corp. ("Evolv" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EVLV). The lawsuit alleges Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) Evolv materially overstated the efficacy of its products; (2) the lack of effectiveness of Evolv's products with regard to detecting knives and guns led to an increased risk of undetected weapons entering locations such as schools; and (3) Evolv deceived the general public, its customers, and its investors regarding the effectiveness of its products. If you bought Evolv shares between June 28, 2021 and March 13, 2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/evolv/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 24, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] EXPEDIA GROUP: Court Dismisses Motion to Certify False Ads' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled against a group of plaintiffs, comprising mainly police officers, who appealed a decision that sought class action certification against leading figures in the online accommodation booking sector. The defendants in the case include Expedia Group, Booking Holdings Inc., Booking.Com B.V., and Trivago. The plaintiffs accused these companies of engaging in deceptive advertising practices and violating consumer protection laws. In their legal challenge, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants' advertising tactics misled consumers, leading them to make premature booking decisions, and inflicted economic damage on the broader marketplace. They did not, however, claim compensatory damages for individual losses, focusing instead on disgorgement, nominal damages, and punitive damages as potential remedies. Echoing the initial judgment, the Superior Court upheld the motion judge's decision, effectively dismissing the appeal. The court concurred that the remedies sought by the plaintiffs -- disgorgement, nominal damages, and punitive damages -- do not align with the provisions of consumer protection statutes applicable to the case. The court pointed out a critical flaw in the plaintiffs' arguments -- the absence of a direct link between any harm suffered due to the defendants' actions and the agreements entered into by consumers, a connection necessary for invoking remedies under s. 18(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. The court also scrutinized the plaintiffs' plea for punitive damages, underscoring the insufficiency of alleging mere statutory breaches to warrant such an award. Without evidence of conduct that is malicious, oppressive, or significantly deviates from accepted standards of decency, the court found no basis for punitive damages. Furthermore, the court noted the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate any compensatory harm that would justify class action certification, underscoring the absence of individual losses and challenging the pursuit of punitive damages as an isolated remedy. In its decision, the court reinforced the stringent criteria for class action certification. It limited the scope of remedies available under consumer protection legislation, particularly in cases alleging unfair practices by online service providers. The court also highlighted the judiciary's cautious stance on awarding disgorgement and punitive damages, emphasizing that such remedies are reserved for instances of egregious misconduct and where a clear causal relationship between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm is evident. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal and clarified the legal landscape for consumer protection, digital advertising practices, and the prerequisites for class action lawsuits. [GN] FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Allergy Medication ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Sandler, writing for wvnstv.com, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Family Dollar, LLC, Walgreens Co., Dolgencorp, Inc., and Walmart, Inc. for wrongful conduct relating to the marketing and sale of an allergy medication. The lawsuit was filed on March 23, 2024 on behalf of the District of southern West Virginia and was filed by West Virginia attorney Charles R. "Rusty" Webb of the Webb Law Centre, PLLC. The wrongful conduct had to do with the marketing, sale, and distribution of allergy, cold and flu products containing the ingredient phenylephrine. The products claimed that this ingredient would help with decongestant issues, which they did not. This ingredient is in at least 250 different kinds of products for decongestion. Although these companies knew that this ingredient was ineffective, they still continued to manufacture and sell the products with the ingredient in and also marketed them as effective. Attorney Charles R. Webb is fighting for all residents in West Virginia and the United States and the case has been assigned to Judge John Thomas Copenhaver Jr., Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. [GN] FANNIE MAE: Final Judgment Entered in Stock Purchase Deal Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT CLASS ACTION LITIGATIONS, Case No. 1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment. When the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, it certified the following classes: 1. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Fannie Mae as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Fannie Preferred Class"); 2. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Freddie Mac as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Preferred Class"); and 3. All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Common Class"). More than a decade after plaintiffs filed the first complaint in this case, it is ready for final judgment. In August 2023, a jury found for plaintiffs and awarded damages. In October, the Court ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest. But the Court has refrained from entering a final, appealable judgment until it has approved plaintiffs’ plan for allocating damages. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EBTHwc at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL HOUSING: Final Judgment Entered in Fairholme Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01053-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment. When the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, it certified the following classes: 1. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Fannie Mae as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Fannie Preferred Class"); 2. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Freddie Mac as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Preferred Class"); and 3. All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Common Class"). More than a decade after plaintiffs filed the first complaint in this case, it is ready for final judgment. In August 2023, a jury found for plaintiffs and awarded damages. In October, the Court ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest. But the Court has refrained from entering a final, appealable judgment until it has approved plaintiffs’ plan for allocating damages. Federal is U.S. regulatory agency that oversees the secondary mortgage market and players within it. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SpuSlo at no extra charge.[CC] GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert. Bid in Silverstein Due Sept. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Silverstein, v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00684-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order setting deadline to move for class certification. The Court's scheduling order omitted setting a deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification. Should the Plaintiff choose to move for class certification, he must do so not later than Sept. 19, 2024, said the Court. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uoj5jj at no extra charge.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Summary Judgment Bid vs Woodhams Partly Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY A. WOODHAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-03990-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Oetken entered an order as follows: -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel; -- denying as moot the Defendant's motion to exclude the opinions of Joel E. Lesch; and -- denying as moot the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's offer of proof. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs would have to devote substantial attention to overcoming their damaging deposition testimony and addressing concerns regarding thei rcredibility on material facts, including whether they even purchased Maximum Strength Robitussin during the relevant time period. On behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class, Timothy A. Woodhams, John Covello, Cynthia Carrillo, Oscar De Leon, Daniel Paul, Robert Trepper, and Daniel Utterback bring consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against GlaxoSmithKline for charging more for "Maximum Strength" Robitussin cough syrup than for "Regular Strength" Robitussin cough syrup, even though the former had a lower concentration of active ingredients per bottle than the latter. On June 20, 2016, as a result of "Project Accelerate," the Defendant released a reformulated Maximum Strength Robitussin. In its reformulation, the Defendant did not change the quantity of active ingredients per dose but doubled the liquid volume of the dose to a 20 ml dose, which provided more liquid volume per dose. In the summer of 2018, Defendant reformulated Regular Strength Robitussin by similarly leaving the quantity of active ingredients per dose unchanged, but doubling the liquid volume of the dose from 10 ml to 20 ml. The Plaintiffs bring claims for purchases of Maximum Strength Robitussin during the time period between June 20, 2016, when Maximum Strength Robitussin was reformulated to a 20 ml dose, and Summer 2018, when Regular Strength Robitussin was also reformulated to a 20 ml dose. The Defendant sells a variety of cough and congestion medications under the Robitussin brand. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mBsljF at no extra charge.[CC] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Parties Seek Approval of Class Cert. Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONRAD RELOJ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court granting their joint motion to set briefing schedule for motion for class certification and pretrial motions: -- The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification and the deadline for all pretrial motions (for all Parties) are both set at April 18, 2024, pursuant to the Court's Dec. 22, 2023, Amended Scheduling Order. -- In addition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Parties anticipate that other motions will be filed at the April 18, 2024, deadline, including but not limited to Defendant's motion for decertification of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective. -- In particular, counsel for the Parties agreed that opposition briefs and related papers shall be due on July 19, 2024, and that reply briefs and related papers shall be due on Sept. 18, 2024. -- The Amended Scheduling Order also sets the following pretrial deadlines: a) Pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3): June 3, 2024 b) Comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4): June 10, 2024 c) Draft Proposed Pretrial Conference Order: June 17, 2024 d) Lodge Final Pretrial Conference Order: June 24, 2024 e) Final Pretrial Conference: July 1, 2024 -- The Parties jointly move the Court to issue an order setting the opposition deadline at July 19, 2023 and the reply deadline at Sept. 18, 2023, for motions filed at the April 18, 2024 deadline. The Parties further jointly move for a hearing date to be set approximately 30 days after the reply deadline. Government Employees is a private American auto insurance company. A copy of the Parties' order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BlS4c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Scott L. Gordon, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com sgordon@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin Walker-Probst, Esq. Courtney C. Wenrick, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (657) 266-1065 Facsimile: (714) 557-3347 E-mail: Kristin.Walker-Probst@wbd-us.com courtney.wenrick@wbd-us.com GRAND AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 13 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANN DESCANZO, VERONICA BONDOC, GLEN SEGUNDINO, and MARIANNE PONIO, and those similarly situated, v. GRAND AMERICA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. and SINCLAIR SERVICES COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00443-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), Hon. Judge Dustin Pead entered an order granting stipulated motion to extend class certification briefing deadlines: Event Deadline Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Sept. 13, 2024 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Oct. 11, 2024 motion for class certification: Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Oct. 25, 2024 for class certification Grand America provides hotel and motel services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=USxXPq at no extra charge.[CC] GREENSBORO COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over Lax Cybersecurity Measures -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Greensboro College faces a proposed class action that claims deficient cybersecurity on the part of the private liberal arts college resulted in an August 2023 data breach. The 49-page Greensboro College data breach lawsuit relays that the personal information of more than 52,000 individuals was compromised when cybercriminals infiltrated the North Carolina college's computer systems. According to the defendant's data breach notice letter, an investigation following the ransomware attack determined that the unauthorized access occurred between August 10 and August 21, 2023. Per the suit, the cyberattack may have exposed individuals' names, Social Security numbers, student identification numbers, dates of birth, passport numbers and certain health information. The data breach case contends that the incident stemmed directly from Greensboro College's failure to take "basic" measures to protect the sensitive information, which was allegedly stored unencrypted in its network. "This information, while compromised and taken by unauthorized third parties, remains also in the possession of [Greensboro College], and without additional safeguards and independent review and oversight, remains vulnerable to additional hackers and theft," the complaint charges. The lawsuit alleges that as a result of Greensboro College's negligent conduct, data breach victims now face a "present, immediate, and ongoing" risk of fraud and identity theft they must now deal with "forever." The suit also asserts that the college unreasonably delayed notifying data breach victims until late February 2024, roughly six months after the incident was purportedly discovered. In addition, the notice letter "completely downplays and disavows the theft" of victims' personal data and omits critical facts about the incident, the case contends. The plaintiff, a former student at Greensboro College, says she has "never been fully informed about the scope of the intrusion, the vulnerabilities exploited, the remediation required or the vulnerability of [her] data that remains in the possession of the defendant." The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was accessed or acquired during the data breach that Greensboro College stated occurred between August 10 and August 21, 2023. [GN] HANDI-FOIL CORP: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osdoby v. Handi-foil Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their permission to file certain materials associated with Handi-Foil's motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under seal and/or in redacted form: -- Handi-Foil's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; -- Handi-Foil's Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; -- The Jan. 18, 2024 Declaration of Michael A. Glick, along with accompanying exhibits; -- Plaintiff's Opposition to Handi-Foil's Motion for Summary Judgment; -- The Plaintiff's Local Civil Rule 56.1 Counterstatement of Material Facts; -- Handi-Foil's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; -- Handi-Foil's Consolidated Response and Reply Regarding its Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts; -- The March 21, 2024 Declaration of Michael A. Glick, along with one accompanying exhibit; -- The Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of her Motion for Class Certification, along with accompanying exhibits; -- Handi-Foil's Opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and -- The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of her Motion for Class Certification. Handi-foil is a privately owned manufacturer of recyclable aluminum products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WeGzSh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 261 Westchester Avenue Tuckahoe, NY 10707 Telephone: (646) 342-2019 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Glick, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 Facsimile: (202) 389-5200 E-mail: michael.glick@kirkland.com HANDI-FOIL: Osdoby Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERRYL OSDOBY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. HANDI-FOIL CORP., Case No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certifying the action as a class action on behalf of: "All persons who purchased Handi-Foil retail products in New York State between July 18, 2019, and the date the Class is certified primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and not for resale." The Products include all Handi-Foil aluminum pans, aluminum containers and aluminum roll foil sold at retail. Excluded from the Class are current and former officers and directors of the Defendant, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of the Defendant, the Defendant's legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and any entity in which they have or have had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class is the judicial officer to whom this lawsuit is assigned. Handi-foil is a privately owned manufacturer of recyclable aluminum products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iZTgxx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 261 Westchester Avenue Tuckahoe, NY 10707 Telephone: (646) 342-2019 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com HARVEST CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder's Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND ALL BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF HARVEST CAPITAL CREDIT CORPORATION ("HCAP") COMMON STOCK WHO PURCHASED, SOLD, OR HELD SUCH STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING THE DATE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE FORMER BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HCAP APPROVED THE ACQUISITION OF HCAP BY PORTMAN RIDGE FINANCE CORPORATION ON DECEMBER 22, 2020, THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE EFFECTIVE TIME OF THE CLOSING OF THE MERGER ON JUNE 9, 2021, THE DATE THE MERGER WAS CONSUMMATED, INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS, TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, ESTATES, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, ASSIGNS, AND TRANSFEREES. The purpose of this notice (the "Summary Notice") is to inform you of: (i) the class action lawsuit captioned In re Harvest Capital Credit Corporation Stockholder Litigation, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") with Civil Action Number 2021-0164-JTL (the "Action"); (ii) the proposed settlement of this Action (the "Settlement") between Plaintiffs and Defendants; and (iii) the hearing to be held by the Court in connection with the proposed Settlement. The hearing will be held in the Court, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by Zoom (in the discretion of the Court), on July 2, 2024, at 11:00am (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purposes of determining, among other things: (a) whether the Action may be finally maintained as a non-opt out class action and whether the Class should be finally certified, for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (b) whether Plaintiffs may be finally appointed as representatives for the Class and Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel finally appointed as counsel for the Class, and whether Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action; (c) whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (d) whether the Order and Final Judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants and releasing all Released Plaintiffs' Claims against Defendants and the Released Group; (e) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; and (f) whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and any incentive award should be approved; and (g) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.1 IF YOU HELD HCAP COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 22, 2020, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 9, 2021 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF HCAP COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Stockholder Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear ("Notice"), you may obtain copies by writing to Harvest Capital Credit Corporation Stockholder Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4620, Portland, OR 97208-4620, 1-855-604-1813, or on the Internet at www.rg2claims.com/hcap.html. Any Class Member who objects to the Stipulation, the Settlement, the class action determination, the Judgment to be entered in the Action, Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or the application for an incentive award ("Objector"), or who otherwise wishes to be heard, may appear in person or by such Class Member's attorney at the Settlement Hearing and present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant; provided, however, that, except for good cause shown or as the Court otherwise directs, no Objector shall be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any Person shall be considered by the Court unless, not later than June 18, 2024 (fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing), such Objector files with the Register in Chancery, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, and serves upon counsel (listed below) a written objection that: (i) identifies the case name and civil action number, "In re Harvest Capital Credit Corporation Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2021 0164-JTL"; (ii) states the name, address, and telephone number of the Objector and, if represented by counsel, the name, address, and telephone number of the Objector's counsel; (iii) is signed by the Objector; (iv) contains a specific, written statement of the objection(s) and the specific reason(s) for the objection(s), including any legal and evidentiary support the Objector wishes to bring to the Court's attention, and, if the Objector has indicated that he, she, or it intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing, the identity of any witnesses the Objector may call to testify and any exhibits the Objector intends to introduce into evidence at the hearing; and (v) includes documentation sufficient to prove that the Objector is a Class Member (i.e., held shares of HCAP common stock at any time during the period from December 22, 2020, through and including, June 9, 2021). KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC Michael J. Palestina 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel.: (504) 455-1400 MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC Juan E. Monteverde The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel.: (212) 971-1341 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative Class POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Matthew E. Fischer Hercules Plaza, Sixth Floor 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel.: (302) 984-6000 Attorneys for Defendants JMP Group LLC, Joseph Jolson, and Richard P. Buckanavage LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP Rebecca L. Butcher 919 Market Street, Suite 1800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel.: (302) 467-4400 [GN] HEALTH CADDIES: Cooper Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANISA COOPER, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), v. HEALTH CADDIES INC., Case No. 9:24-cv-80279-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Granting conditional certification of the above styled Case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for the following Collective: Misclassified Employee Collective: All Insurance Sales Agents employed by the Defendant in Florida during the previous three (3) years who were misclassified as independent contractors and worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. (2) Appointing the Plaintiff, JANISA COOPER, as the Representative of the Misclassified Employee Collective with authority to negotiate and appear at mediations on behalf of the Collective; (3) Appointing the law firm of USA Employment Lawyers – Jordan Richards PLLC, and Michael V. Miller, Esq., as lead counsel for the class; (4) Expediting discovery production from the Defendants, within 10 calendar days of the Court's Order granting this Motion, of a complete list, electronically in an Excel spreadsheet, of each and every Insurance Sales Agent listed alphabetically from "A" to "Z" – including their last known home address, cellular telephone number and e-mail addresses, with a separate field corresponding with each name – who was ever employed as a Insurance Sales Agent by Defendant within three (3) years of the date notice is sent; (5) Permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a Court-Approved Notice via mail, email and/or text message to all such persons about their right to opt-in to this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit (in the forms attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D); (6) Granting the putative class 90 days to submit the Consents to Join forms from the date the Consents are initially mailed, emailed and/or text messaged by the Plaintiffs' counsel; (7) Awarding such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant implemented and enforced a common and widespread policy of misclassifying all ISAs as independent contractors in an effort to avoid paying them statutorily mandated federal overtime wages during the past three (3) years. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from August of 2023 through Jan. 24, 2024. The Defendant operates an insurance sales company that provides customers with several insurance plan options. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RGkLqz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com HEALTH FIRST: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 21 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS and CHRISTINA ROSEAN, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), moves the Court to stay or extend the following class discovery and certification deadlines under the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order: Current Schedule: Close of Class Fact Discovery including April 1, 2024 filing of any Motion to Compel Class Fact Discovery: Disclosure of Class Expert Reports Plaintiff: May 15, 2024 Defendant: June 21, 2024 Close of Class Expert discovery including July 30, 2024 filing of Motion to Compel Class Expert Discovery: Filing of Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 21, 2024 Filing of Response to Motion for Class Sept. 27, 2024 Certification: Filing of Reply to Motion for Class Oct. 21, 2024 Certification including any class expert rebuttal reports: Due to a cybersecurity event involving the vendor HF contracted with to provide the data, HF is unable to provide new deadlines at this point. Nonetheless, HF proposes that it submit a status update on or before April 16, 2024. On March 11, 2024, HF filed a Notice of Cybersecurity Event explaining that it would be unable to meet the April 1, 2024 class fact discovery deadline as set forth by this Court in the CMSO. Health First provides medical equipment, health care, and insurance services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U3yXhT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth B. Honkonen, Esq. Richard Alan Arnold, Esq. Deborah S. Corbishley, Esq. Christina M. Ceballos-Levy, Esq. KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. Four Seasons Tower - Suite 1100 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 Facsimile: (305) 372-1861 E-mail: ebh@knpa.com rarnold@knpa.com dsc@knpa.com ccl@knpa.com HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Frechete Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIANA FRECHETTE, et al., v. HEALTH RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order as follows: -- Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss is granted and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as moot. -- Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice. The case arises out of unauthorized third-party access to Defendant Health Recovery Services, Inc.'s computer storage systems. The Defendant is a mental health and substance abuse nonprofit that offers a variety of services and treatment options to members of the community, including, among others, Tiana Frechette and her two minor children. Ms. Frechette brought suit against the Defendant, claiming breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and both willful and negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Health Recovery offers medication assisted treatment to those who need help with alcohol and drug addiction. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q8icLQ at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Chiarito Continued to Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH CHIARITO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04662-GW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order as follows: 1. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued from Aug. 1, 2024 to Oct. 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. 2. The deadline to file all briefing regarding the motion for class certification is continued from July 15, 2024 to Oct. 14, 2024. 3. The other related dates will be rescheduled at the hearing. The parties will file a joint report re proposed dates by noon on Oct. 29, 2024. Home Depot sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jztovU at no extra charge.[CC] IKEA NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Countertop Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction,org, reports that a proposed class action claims Ikea's line of Kasker custom quartz countertops and Caesarstone's quartz countertops suffer from a defect that causes them to permanently stain, streak or become marked up from normal, everyday use. The 40-page lawsuit says that although defendants Ikea North America Services, Ikea US Retail and Caesarstone USA have known since at least 2015 that the countertops are prone to stains, streaks and marks that cannot be removed using their own care instructions, the companies have actively concealed the alleged defect from customers. The complaint claims the defendants "continually deny" the existence of the countertop defect when contacted by dissatisfied customers. Instead, Ikea and Caesarstone provide "excuses for sub-par performance," stating that the countertops are "intended to show marks," that the finish makes them harder to clean, or that the stains are the consumer's fault, the case contends. What's more, the suit says, the defendants require customers to pay out of pocket to clean, repair or replace the apparently defective countertops. According to the lawsuit, Caesarstone says its warranty does not cover "routine maintenance" such as "removing stains and water spots" by following the techniques specified in its care and maintenance guidelines. Similarly, Ikea's warranty does not extend to "wear and tear such as stains, scratches, water spots and burns" or "failure to comply with care instructions," the case relays. "In sum, [the defendants'] warranty does not cover stains and water spots caused by daily use because [the defendants] claim that routine cleaning according to their instructions will remove such stains and water spots," the complaint says. The plaintiffs, two California residents, say it wasn't until a fabricator came to their house to install the Kasker Anthracite Stone Effect custom countertops they picked out from Ikea that they learned the product was manufactured by Caesarstone. The case claims that manifestations of the defect soon appeared on the plaintiffs' countertops, such as water stains from the bottom of a drinking glass that do not come out even after being cleaned according to Caesarstone's care instructions. When Caesarstone was alerted to the issue, a warranty specialist for the company said there was "little" that could be done since the countertops have "a concrete finish which takes more effort to clean than the normal polish product," the filing shares. "Prior to this exchange, neither IKEA nor Caesarstone had told [the plaintiffs] that the countertops they had chosen took more effort to clean," the suit says. "To date, [the plaintiffs] have not received a permanent repair to the defect under warranty and their countertops continue to exhibit the defect." Per the case, the plaintiffs and other customers would not have bought the countertops -- or would have paid significantly less for them -- had they known the products were prone to permanent stains arising from normal use. The filing claims Ikea and Caesarstone know the countertops are defective from the consistent and disproportionate number of complaints consumers have posted about the issue, yet the companies "continue to cover up and conceal the true nature of the problem today." The lawsuit looks to represent any person or entity in the United States that purchased Ikea's Kasker custom quartz countertops or Caesarstone's quartz countertops. [GN] INMAR BRAND: Holmes Loses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT D. HOLMES, v. INMAR BRAND SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02093-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order that: (1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied. (2) The Defendant's Request for Oral Argument is denied as moot. (3) This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. The Plaintiff Holmes is pursuing claims of violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and breach of contract against Inmar Brand. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a rebate program administered by IBS on behalf of Deutsch, a marketer and distributor of retail wines and alcohol. The rebate forms in question were located on "neck tags" hanging from the bottles of Yellow Tail wine and offered a rebate of anywhere from $3 to $18 for the purchase of 3-12 bottles of Yellow Tail wine. Inmar develops enterprise software. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mujxjL at no extra charge.[CC] JBS USA: Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint by April 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EDWARDS, et al., v. JBS USA HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01789-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' "Motion for Joinder / Misjoinder of Party-Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel" is denied as procedurally improper. If Plaintiffs wish to add or remove parties, they must file an amended complaint. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint by no later than April 22, 2024. 2. The Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss" is denied without prejudice. Following the submission of any amended complaint, the Defendants may renew their motion. 3. The Defendants' "Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss" is denied as moot. JBS is a meat processing company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wap4pJ at no extra charge.[CC] JKS HOME: Class Cert. Bids in Kayce Suit Due Jan. 27, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kayce Smith, v. JKS Home Improvement, LLC., et al. Case No. 3:23-cv-01509-AMN-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: (1) The deadlines set in this scheduling order supersede the deadlines set forth in fed. r. civ. p.26(a)(3) and are firm and will not be extended, even by stipulation of the parties, absent good cause. (2) Venue motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date of this Order following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 7.1 (a)(2) and are to be made returnable before the assigned Magistrate Judge. (3) Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before April 30, 2024. (4) Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before April 30, 2024. (5) The parties are directed to file a status report on or before June 20, 2024. (6) Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by March 13, 2024. (7) Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by April 18, 2024. (8) All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before Dec. 31, 2024. (9) Class Certification Motions are to be filed on or before Jan. 27, 2025. (10) Conditional Class Certification Motions are to be filed on or before Nov. 15, 2024. JKS is a third generation family owned and operated construction business. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SZZY83 at no extra charge.[CC] JRK PROPERTY: Peebles Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDA PEEBLES and JOSHUA BERGER, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all Others similarly situated, v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., STEVENS POND APARTMENTS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, and ONE WEBSTER APARTMENTS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10523-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and G. L. c. 93A(9)(2). The Plaintiffs allege that JRK unlawfully retained the security deposit monies of tenants at all of its properties during the relevant time period to remedy "reasonable wear and tear" in violation of G. L. c. 186, sections 15B(4)(iii), (6)(e) and (6)(c). Further, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the inclusion of the Move Out Addendum in JRK's leases constitutes an unlawful lease provision in violation of G. L. c. 186, section 15B(6)(c), the penalty for which is also JRK's forfeiture of the entirety of the tenant's security deposit. To that end, the Plaintiffs are seeking the return of all the security deposit monies retained by JRK from any tenant for any reason whatsoever at all JRK properties during the time period. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following main class of Plaintiffs: "Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed by JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and whose lease contained the Move Out Addendum." Alternatively, the Plaintiffs would seek to certify any of the following sub-classes: "Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed by JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and who’s lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for any reason whatsoever." "Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed by JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and who's lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for "carpet cleaning," "touch-up paint" or to remedy other normal wear and tear." "Current and former tenants of Stevens Pond and One Webster during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and who's lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for any reason whatsoever." "Current and former tenants of Stevens Pond and One Webster during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit and who's lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for "carpet cleaning," "touch-up paint" or to remedy other normal wear and tear. Ms. Peebles and Mr. Berger are former tenants of JRK. JRK is an owner and/or property manager of six (6) residential apartment complexes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts comprised of over 1,000 apartment units, A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lKkm3A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith L. Sachsm, Esq. Shaun M. Khan, Esq. DDSK Law LLC 900 Cummings Center, Suite 210-U Beverly, MA 01915 Telephone: (978) 338-6620 Facsimile: (978) 338-6621 E-mail: ksachs@ddsklaw.com skhan@ddsklaw.com KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Seeks to Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK ROBERSON, et al., v. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. (KCSR), Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RK (W.D. Mo.), KCSR moves the Court for an extension of time to oppose class certification. KCSR requests that the deadline to oppose class certification be extended to April 26, 2024. KCSR has not previously requested any extension of this deadline. Counsel for KCSR has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion, says the Defendant. On March 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The current scheduling order does not set an explicit deadline for KCSR to oppose class certification. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pfDjce at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas R. Chiavetta, Esq. Donald J. Munro, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 E-mail: tchiavetta@jonesday.com dmunro@jonesday.com - and - Shelley I. Ericsson, Esq. Daniel P. Johnson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4520 Main St., Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 E-mail: shelley.ericsson@ogletree.com daniel.johnson@ogletree.com LENNAR CORPORATION: Tuso Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD TUSO, v. LENNAR CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-22264-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an order granting without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss complaint. If the Plaintiff wants to file an amended complaint, he must do so by April 4, 2024, says the Court. On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant, asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). According to Mr. Tuso, his cell phone number has been registered on the national Do Not Call ("DNC") Registry since July 2, 2003. He adds that he "uses his cell phone number for personal use only as one would use a landline telephone number in a home." Mr. Tuso brings this lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) "on behalf of himself and [a] Class of similarly situated individuals." He seeks certification of the following class (which he refers to as the "Do Not Call Registry Class"): "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) Lennar called more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person's residential telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason Defendant called the Plaintiff." Lennar is a home construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gzC2xU at no extra charge.[CC] LIVEPERSON INC: Ct. Appoints Damri as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOAM DAMRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIVEPERSON, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10517-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order appointing Noam Damri lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP lead counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions. The Court orders the parties, by no later than March 29, 2024 to file a joint letter proposing a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and any motion to dismiss. Because Damri satisfies all of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") requirements, the Court finds him presumptively the most adequate plaintiff. The Court therefore appoints Damri lead plaintiff. On Dec. 1, 2023, Damri filed this action on behalf of all individuals who purchased shares of LivePerson between May 10, 2022 and March 16, 2023. Damri certifies that he purchased 500 shares of LivePerson during the class period, retained 50 shares through the class period's end, and lost a total of$375 on these when the share price dropped. LivePerson is a technology company that "delivers mobile and online messaging solutions through Conversational Artificial Intelligence." A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4EWT7 at no extra charge.[CC] LLOYD AUSTIN: Arzamendi Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY ARZAMENDI, et al., v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00770-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9jcf5R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Scott Lloyd, Esq. LLOYD, LEMMON, & HALE, PLLC 15 Chester St Front Royal, VA 22630 Telephone: (540) 823-1110 E-mail: scott@lloydlemmonhale.com - and - Jaskanwal S. Braich, Esq. COX P.L.L.C. 8144 Walnut Hill Ln, Suite 1090 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 444-7050 E-mail: jbraich@coxpllc.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 10, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ocean S. et al., v. Los Angeles County et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06921-JAK-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt entered an order setting pretrial deadlines as follows: -- Last day to add parties / amend pleadings: Sept. 9, 2024 -- Deadline to file motion for class March 10, 2025 certification: -- Opposition to motion for class May 19, 2025 Certification: -- Reply to motion for class certification: June 9, 2025 -- Last day to conduct settlement conference or June 24, 2025 Mediation: -- Last day to file notice of settlement / June 27, 2025 joint report re settlement: -- Hearing on motion for class certification July 14, 2025 and post mediation status conference: -- Non-expert discovery cut-off: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Initial expert disclosure for plaintiffs: Oct. 15, 2025 -- Rebuttal expert disclosure for defendants: Oct. 29, 2025 -- Reply expert disclosure for plaintiffs: Nov. 25, 2025 -- Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 9, 2026 -- Last day to file all motions: Feb. 2, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TDYGmL at no extra charge.[CC] LULIFAMA.COM: Epstein Bid to Dismiss Pop Complaint OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIN POP, v. LULIFAMA.COM LLC, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-02698-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order: -- granting Gabrielle Epstein's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, and -- dismissing with prejudice Counts I, II, and III as to Defendant Gabrielle Epstein. The action arises from the allegedly deceptive and misleading promotion of Luli Fama products by LuliFama.com LLC, My LuliBabe, LLC, Lourdes Hanimian, and eight influencers. Luli Fama is a swimwear designer, manufacturer, and reseller that came to fame with the rise of Instagram. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r9iPKk at no extra charge.[CC] MAN SE: Munich Court Overturns Truck Cartel Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Agnieszka Kulikowska, writing for Trans.info, reports that in a damages lawsuit against collusive truck manufacturers, the Higher Regional Court of Munich overturned a verdict handed down some three years ago. This means that the District Court of Munich must reopen the largest lawsuit for damages against the truck cartel, reports the German news agency dpa. "The legal dispute is not yet ready to be resolved," explained the Higher National Court. Purchasers of 70,000 trucks acquired at allegedly inflated prices are demanding more than half a billion euros in damages from manufacturers MAN, Daimler, Iveco and Volvo/Renault. At first instance, the court dismissed the class action as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded. The Higher National Court overturned this decision in an appeal process. [GN] MANITOBA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit Over Child Welfare System ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Blackburn, writing for aptnnews.ca, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed by two First Nations women in Manitoba on behalf of off-reserve survivors of the child welfare system is heading to court with each of the defendants blaming the other. Both Canada and Manitoba are asking for the claim filed by Tracy McKenzie and Amber Fontaine to be dismissed. A certification hearing is scheduled for March 2025. The lawsuit, originally filed by McKenzie in 2021, alleges harms related to her time in care. Fontaine added her name to the case in 2023. "To be honest, I don't really remember a whole lot about my life before the system," McKenzie told APTN News. "When I was taken into care, I was quite young." The case mirrors others class action lawsuits filed in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. It seeks damages for off-reserve First Nations people, Inuit and Metis going back to 1992 and up to when the lawsuit is either certified or another date is set by the courts. "I don't have memories the same way that a lot of people do -- I am bits and pieces," McKenzie said in an interview. "Living in so many different places affected my understanding of what a family was. I didn't really have an idea of what a family was. I had different people in different places and different situations, explaining to me and showing me what they thought they should be showing me about what a family is." McKenzie, who was born in 1990, is a member of Temagami First Nation in Ontario. She was born in Winnipeg to a mother who was a ‘60s Scoop survivor. Her grandparents were residential school survivors. She was taken from her family at the age of three, and, according to the statement of claim filed in Winnipeg, lived in 30 placements that included "safe houses, shelters, group homes, hotels, emergency shelters and foster homes." "[There is] damage you experience from living with people who are just paid to take care of you, who are not necessarily there for the right reasons," she said. "The lack of self-worth that I have, the feelings of inadequacy." APTN didn't speak with Fontaine for this article, but the statement of claim says she is Ojibway, was born in 1987, and has status under the Indian Act through family in Sagkeeng First Nation. The claim says she was born in Pine Falls, Man., and taken into care at the age of six while living off reserve. She spent a little more than six months in care, but during that time she says she "experienced intense anti-Indigenous racism." "She was forced to attend church with a foster family, and was provided no opportunity to connect with Ojibway practices or spiritual teachings, as she had been exposed to when living at home with her own family," says the claim. "As a child, she had naturally occurring strands of white hair. She was very proud of it, as in her Ojibway culture white hair is a sign of wisdom. When Ms. Fontaine shared this fact with a foster family, the foster mother sat her down and forcibly plucked the white hairs from her head, because that worldview was incompatible with the Christian culture of the foster family." According to the claim, her foster father called her "blackie" because of her dark skin. Off-reserve children The claim alleges that "Canada and Manitoba have knowingly underfunded child and family services for Removed Child Class members in Manitoba. This chronic underfunding, neglect, and outright avoidance of their constitutional and legal duties to Indigenous children, youth, and families has prevented child and family services from providing adequate services and care. As a result, it has failed generations of Indigenous children and families who have come into contact with that system." It further alleges the governments "engaged in a discriminatory practice" that "prioritized and incentivized the removal of Indigenous children from their families" and breached their charter rights. However, Manitoba puts the blame solely on Canada for the plight of off-reserve children in the child welfare system. ". . . Colonialism, residential schools, the 60's Scoop, and other national policies introduced by Canada," says the statement of defence filed by Manitoba on Dec. 28, 2023, "caused or contributed to poverty, lower education rates, and conditions of social and familial functioning on First Nations and among Indigenous peoples off-reserve." It denies Manitoba's "management of child welfare" was done "in a manner to assimilate Indigenous children, or that it has employed discriminatory practices to destroy Indigenous families or cultures." The province added that "Indigenous children who reside off-reserve, are provided with equivalent opportunities to access provincial services as non-Indigenous children; in the alternative, says that the harms alleged by the plaintiffs are not compensable through this action." APTN reached out to Premier Wab Kinew's office to comment on the case. According to a cabinet spokesperson, "the government of Manitoba is unable to comment on a matter that is currently before the courts." Canada, in its statement of defence filed Feb. 29, pointed the finger right back at Manitoba. "Manitoba has legislative jurisdiction under section 92 of the Constitution Act," the claim said. "At all material times, Manitoba, and not Canada, exercised its jurisdiction through provincial entities acting pursuant to its child and family services legislation. For its part, Canada did not exercise jurisdiction or have control over the child welfare or essential services at issue and provided no direct funding for the provision of off-reserve child welfare services. It follows that the circumstances set out in the Claim do not give rise to any duties in law or equity as against Canada." Mohsen Seddiigh, a lawyer involved in the case said he's not surprised by what Manitoba and Canada filed. "Canada says it's not my problem and Manitoba says it's not my problem it's Canada's," he said. "They're planning a bit of a game with a tennis ball here. Each of them said the action should be dismissed because it's not their fault -- it's the other ones. I'm not surprised that governments decide to fight lawsuits, it's a bit of the old mindset." Another of McKenzie and Fontaine's lawyers, Harold Cochrane, told APTN the off-reserve class action is looking for the same results as a case that was recently settled with the federal government for $43 billion. That case started at the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2007 and was launched by the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. The organizations alleged Canada was underfunding child welfare services on First Nations in all provinces and Yukon. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case, ruled in 2016 that Canada "willfully and recklessly" discriminated against First Nations children who lived on reserve and were taken into care by underfunding the system that was supposed to help them and ordered compensation. After years of appeals and negotiations, the federal government agreed to pay $43 billion -- more than half of which will compensate thousands of on reserve children and families -- and the rest will go towards fixing the on-reserve child welfare system. "That class action [federal] only related to First Nation children on reserve. It left out the vast majority of Indigenous children who are in care and those are off-reserve children," said Cochrane. "So the class action that we're talking about is, for a lack of a better word, to help fill in that gap. It's meant to address, or help those children who were left out of that $40 billion settlement. "They don't benefit at all from that and their rights are no less than children living on reserve." Manitoba isn't the only jurisdiction pushing back against similar class actions. In British Columbia, the provincial government said in its statement of defence that "The Plaintiffs have not suffered any loss or damage that was caused or contributed to by any negligence, breach of any legal duty, or breach of the Charter, by or on behalf of the Province." A hearing for the certification is scheduled for October 2024. In Quebec, a class action that originated in the Inuit territory of Nunavik, alleges, among other issues, that Canada and Quebec prioritized "removing Indigenous children from their homes instead of providing Indigenous parents with services to care for their children at home." While the class action was certified by a Quebec judge, the province is currently challenging that certification in court. The governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario have yet to file a statement of defence. When the class action was launched in Manitoba, the province was under the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. But with the election of the NDP government in 2023 -- and Canada's first Anishinaabe premier in Wab Kinew -- there was hope that the new administration would handle this case in a different way. For example, Manitoba announced on March 25 it was willing to settle lawsuits alleging it wrongly took money from children in its care between 2005 and 2019. Cochrane, whose law firm was involved in that case as well, said the province would have saved an estimated $200 million in penalties and interest had officials negotiated when the lawsuit was first filed in 2018. He hopes it doesn't make the same mistake in this case. "We certainly would appreciate that he [Kinew] along with his other ministers who are First Nation would bring a different understanding to that level of government," said Cochrane. "We also recognize that he's the premier and he's got a job to do and certainly aren't expecting any special favours. "However, expecting to deal with the government that might be a little more understanding and that's our hope . . . a better understanding of the issues." Manitoba is asking that the class action be dismissed "with costs." There are approximately 10,000 children in Manitoba's child welfare system, and approximately 90 per cent are First Nation, Inuit or Metis. McKenzie, now a mother herself, has been diagnosed with "clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder," said the claim. "Being a part of this lawsuit is important to me because as I was growing up, all I wanted, all I really, really wanted, was belonging," she told APTN. "I wanted connection because that's what a human being needs." [GN] MARK CUBAN: Seeks April 10 Extension to File Response ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for them to file response to April 10, 2024. The Defendants says that if the deadline is so moved, the Plaintiffs' reply will be due on Wednesday April 17. This would mean that class certification briefing would be complete merely nine days later than the Court's Scheduling Order had contemplated. The Plaintiffs first filed this action on Aug. 10, 2022. The case was stayed for a period of time, and then the Plaintiffs moved to reopen the case and for leave to file an amended complaint on April 24, 2023. On June 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed under seal their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC added six new named Plaintiffs, and kept eleven of the original named Plaintiffs, but dropped a previously named Plaintiff that had been deposed. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D6mIKi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher E. Knight, Esq. Esther E. Galicia, Esq. Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com egalicia@fowler-white.com atifford@fowler-white.com - and - Paul C. Huck, Jr., Esq. LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ, PLLC 334 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (850) 825-4334 E-mail: paul@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com - and - Stephen A. Best, Esq. Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP 601 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 536-1737 Facsimile: (202) 536-1701 E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com MONARCH RECOVERY: Bids for Summary Judgment Tossed in Goldring -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TZVI GOLDRING, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07893-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Gardephe entered an order: -- denying without prejudice the Defendant's motions for summary judgment, and -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and for class certification. By April 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs will show cause why their Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims should not be dismissed for failure to plead facts or proffer evidence demonstrating Article III standing. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated FDCPA by sending out collection letters that do not advise consumers that any request for (1) verification of a debt, or (2) the name and address of the original creditor, must be made in writing. The Defendant is debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VYs4lg at no extra charge.[CC] MYTHICAL VENTURE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MYTHICAL VENTURE, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-10324-JFW-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order granting stipulation to extend class certification deadline as follows: Matter Time Date in Modified original date/deadline scheduling order Trial (jury) Estimated 8:30 am Dec. 3, 2024 unchanged length: 3 days [Jury trial] Hearing 8:00 am Dec. 22, 2024 unchanged on Motions in Limine; Hearing on Disputed Jury instructions Last day for hearing 1:30 pm Aug. 5, 2024 unchanged motions Discovery cut-off July 22, 2024 unchanged ADR Deadline June 3, 2024 unchanged Class Certification Deadline Apr. 11, 2024 May 13, 2024 Mythical is an entertainment company, lifestyle brand, and creative collective founded by comedians Rhett and Link. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2xbHto at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Suit Seeks $939 Million in Additional Damages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Berkowitz and Steve Gardner of USA Today report that the NCAA and its Power 5 conferences could be facing more than $900 million in additional damages as a result of a class-action lawsuit seeking academic achievement payments to athletes dating back to the 2019-2020 school year. The suit -- filed in April 2023 -- followed a ruling upheld by the Supreme Court in 2021 in the case of former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston that prevents the NCAA from having limits on the education-related compensation athletes can receive from their schools. The new figure was included in a filing by the NCAA late Wednesday night in the latest lawsuit involving former Oklahoma State running back Chuba Hubbard, The association cited an expert for the plaintiffs, who estimated that college athletes would be owed $313 million for the four calendar years (three academic years) before the Alston ruling went into effect. The four-year reach-back from filing date is allowed under federal antitrust law. Also, if an antitrust case goes to a jury verdict, damages are tripled. In this instance, that would result in an award of $939 million. The NCAA is arguing that the Hubbard case should not be granted class-action status because the "highly varied and diverse ways in which . . . schools implemented Alston awards present inherently individualized issues." It draws a distinction between those and the class-wide damages that are mostly uniform and can be determined in a manageable way. [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Approves Nov. 28, 2023 Report & Recommendation ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy O'Mara, v. NH State Prison for Men, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00380-SM-AJ (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Steven McAuliffe entered an order approving the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated November 28, 2023. The Court said, "Only those issues fairly raised by the objections to the magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal." H is a level two minimum-security facility in Concord, Merrimack County. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KFaB7l at no extra charge.[CC] PARKMOBILE LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, MARIAM GEORGE, EMMA JACKSON, SAIT KURMANGALIYEV, GREGORY MANSON, HERIBERTO TRAVIESTO, and JACK WEAVER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02182-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant requests a 25-day extension of the deadline for it to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 21, 2023 revised case instructions, Counsel for ParkMobile conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs do not oppose this extension. 1. The Plaintiffs timely filed their motion for class certification on Feb. 12, 2024. 2. Pursuant to the Court's Corrected Scheduling Order, ParkMobile must file its response to this motion no later than eight weeks after it was filed. This makes April 8, 2024 the current deadline for ParkMobile to respond to the motion. 3. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), a schedule may be modified "for good cause and with the judge's consent." 4. The Plaintiffs' motion relies in part on the opinions of four expert witnesses. ParkMobile needs sufficient time to prepare for and conduct the depositions of these witnesses. Due to the number of experts and scheduling limitations, ParkMobile will not be able to depose the last of the Plaintiffs' experts until April 26, 2024. A brief extension to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion therefore is warranted. 5. ParkMobile proposes, and the Plaintiffs do not oppose, that its deadline to respond to the pending motion class certification class certification be set for May 3, 2024. 6. The Plaintiffs' reply brief then would be due eight weeks after the response is filed – making it due on June 28, 2024 Parkmobile provides mobile parking solutions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EkKbZH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Joshua L. Becker, Esq. Caroline M. Gieser, Esq. Timia A. Skelton, Esq. Alfred J. Saikali, Esq. Tammy B. Webb, Esq. Jason K. Ward, Esq. Justin R. Donoho, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (470) 867-6000 Facsimile: (470) 867-6001 E-mail: jbecker@shb.com cgieser@shb.com tskelton@shb.com asaikali@shb.com tbwebb@shb.com jward@shb.com jdonoho@shb.com PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Class Cert Filing in Lujano Modified to Oct. 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE LUJANO as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-00405-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entere an order modifying the Oct. 20, 2023, Order re joint stipulation to continue case deadlines as follows: Event Date Final Pretrial Conference & May 15, 2025 Hearing on Motions in Limine: Last Date to File Motion for Class Oct. 7, 2024 Certification: Last Date to File Opposition to Motion Oct. 28, 2024 for Class Certification: Last Date to File Reply to Motion Nov. 11, 2024 for Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Dec. 5, 2024 Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference: Mar. 24, 2025 Piedmont is an American regional airline headquartered at the Salisbury Regional Airport in Wicomico County, Maryland, near the city of Salisbury. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9UmAvQ at no extra charge.[CC] PLANTRONICS INC: Seeks to Seal Confidential Class Cert Materials ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Plantronics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-07481-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order considering whether to seal the following documents that Plaintiffs have designated "Confidential" pursuant to the protective order entered in this case: -- Defendants' opposition to motion for class certification; and -- Exhibits A and B of the Declaration of Jessica L. Lewis in Support of Defendants' Opposition. Plantronics was an American electronics company producing audio communications equipment for business and consumers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UlxtdZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan D'Errico, Esq. William Freeland, Esq. Alexander McRae Noble, Esq. Lauren A Ormsbee, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Fl. New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: jonathan.derrico@blbglaw.com billy.freeland@blbglaw.com alexander.noble@blbglaw.com lauren@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. Karl Phillip Barth, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Joseph Kingerski, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BEMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com karlb@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com joeyk@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Susan S. Muck, Esq. Kevin P. Muck, Esq. Jessica L. Lewis, Esq. Peter J. Kolovos, Esq. Sonia Sujanani, Esq. Christopher W. Johnstone, Esq. Caleb Lin, Esq. Noah S. Guiney, Esq. Mike Romeo, Esq. Ryan M. Corriveau, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP One Front Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 235-1002 Facsimile: (628) 235-1001 E-mail: susan.muck@wilmerhale.com kevin.muck@wilmerhale.com jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com sonia.sujanani@wilmerhale.com chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com caleb.lin@wilmerhale.com noah.guiney@wilmerhale.com mike.romeo@wilmerhale.com ryan.corriveau@wilmerhale.com PRO CUSTOM: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIEMCZYK v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-07846 (D.N.J., Filed March 5, 2019), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order granting the parties' March 20, 2024, request to extend by one month the deadlines to file any motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs will serve on Defendant any May 6, 2024 motion for class certification by: -- The Defendant will serve any opposition on June 28, 2024 Plaintiffs by: -- The Plaintiff will file the moving, July 30, 2024 opposition, and reply papers with the Court, and serve a copy of the reply on Defendant: The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone equipment Pro Custom provides renewable energy services.[CC] PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Ct. Awards CEF $39K in Atty's Fees ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHILD EVANGELISM FELLOWSHIP OF RHODE ISLAND, INC. (CEF), v. PROVIDENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT and DR. JAVIER MONTAÑEZ, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Providence Public School District, Case No. 1:23-cv-00099-MSM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Mary McElroy entered an order granting in part and denying in part CEF's motion for Attorney's fees and costs. The Court awards CEF $39,577.18 in attorneys' fees and $3,413.79 in costs for a total award of $42,990.97. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated its civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Pursuant to a Consent Order and Judgment, CEF was declared the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. section 1988. Providence Public School Department is the administrative force behind the primary public school district of Providence, Rhode Island. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndYyVG at no extra charge.[CC] RBS CITIZENS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 18 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REINIG et al v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541 (W.D. Pa., Filed Nov. 23, 2015), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order as follows: -- Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs shall file their April 4, 2024 renewed motion to certify class on the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) Regular Rate Claim on or before: -- Citizens shall file its response in opposition April 18, 2024 on or before: -- Citizens shall file its motion for summary April 18, 2024 judgment on the PMWA Regular Rate Claim on or before: -- Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs shall file their May 2, 2024 response in opposition on or before: -- Citizens may file a reply brief in support May 9, 2024 of its motion on or before: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] REAL ESTATE ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Competitive Conduct --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Geske, Cook County Record, reports that a class action lawsuit seeks to expand the nationwide spate of lawsuits accusing real estate brokerages of alleged anti-competitive behavior, this time accusing brokerage of allegedly seeking to improperly boost agents' commissions. The lawsuit was filed March 20 in Cook County Circuit Court against Michigan-based Real Estate One, Inc. accusing the company of alleged anti-competitive behavior. The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Paul T. Geske, William Kingston and Brendan Duffner, of the firm of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Matthew Hartz, of Illinois, who allegedly sold a home in Michigan. According to the complaint, Real Estate One represented sellers or buyers in more than 18,000 transactions totaling at least $6.1 billion in sales volume in 2022. The lawsuit levels allegations similar to those already laid out by the federal Justice Department and in lawsuits against the National Association of Realtors and other brokerages throughout the country. Those actions accuse realtors of anti-competitive practices, particularly including leveraging the use of the Multiple Listing Services to corner the market on listing and viewing houses for sale, allegedly resulting in home sellers across the U.S. unknowingly allegedly paying too much for realtor services and allegedly receiving substandard services from residential real estate brokers and members of the NAR. Those lawsuits have resulted in a judgment worth $1.2 billion against certain brokerages, and settlements which collectively are worth more than $600 million, to be paid by the NAR and a collection of large brokerages. The same attorneys filed a nearly identical lawsuit against brokerage Baird & Warner in February. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Real Estate One to pay three times the plaintiffs' actual damages, plus other damages and attorney fees. [GN] REALNETWORKS INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against RealNetworks, Inc. ("RealNetworks" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RNWK). The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and docketed under 24-cv- 00297, is on behalf of the former minority shareholders of RealNetworks against RealNetworks and the former members of its Board of Directors, including Robert Glaser, the Company's Founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and largest shareholder, for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78n(e) and Sec. 78t(a). Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the acquisition of the Company (the "Transaction") by Glaser and Glaser's investment entities Greater Heights LLC and Greater Heights Acquisition LLC. If you were an unaffiliated stockholder who held RealNetworks shares and were cashed out on December 21, 2022, you have until May 3, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646.581.9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. RealNetworks is a technology Company that was instrumental in creating the streaming media category in the mid-1990s and is involved in numerous lines of technology related business today. In recent years, the Company has increasingly focused on developing artificial intelligence based products and services such as its Secure Accurate Facial Recognition computer vision platform and its "Kontxt" natural language processing based message classification and analysis product. The Complaint alleges that, the Individual Defendants had the ability to exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their position as controlling persons, the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act throughout the Class Period, Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Must File Updated Joint Status Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S., et al., v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard Jones entered an order requiring updated joint status report as follows: -- Counsel are directed to confer and provide the Court with a Joint Status Report by April 3, 2024, setting forth the parties' proposed schedule for discovery and briefing related to a motion for class certification. -- If the parties are unable to agree on any part of the Joint Status Report, they may answer in separate paragraphs. No separate reports are to be filed. -- Plaintiff's counsel will be responsible for starting the communications needed to comply with this Order. Regence operates as a subsidiary of Cambia Health Solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9Cfoh at no extra charge.[CC] ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Virtual Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel J. McGinn, writing for Jones Walker, reports that as casino gaming attempts to integrate itself further into the mainstream, operators have increasingly targeted a younger, more diverse player base than the demographic commonly associated with in-person table and slot machine wagering. One of the more notable attempts to expand the base is through the implementation of casino elements within other games, allowing players to obtain virtual currency and wager the currency in either an open or closed-loop environment[1]. As the integration of virtual gambling increases, so have the variations on the casino gaming and inevitably, the lawsuits. The most recent lawsuit, a class-action styled as Gentry et al. v Roblox Corp. et al, focuses on two key gaming aspects of the "virtual casino," the associated gameplay and underlying transactions[2]. The complaint leads by describing how Roblox's native virtual currency, Robux, is purchasable with real-world currency through a transaction with Roblox, and the virtual currency is then available on a player's account. The player can then "remove" the Robux from the main Roblox environment by accessing a third-party website that "converts" Robux to another currency for its casino games. The effect of this "conversion" is to transfer the Robux, within Roblox's environment and on a ledger kept by Roblox, from the player to the third-party casino operator. The operator then provides the player virtual currency credits that can only be used to gamble on the casino operator's website. In effect, while the Robux never leave the Roblox environment, the value associated with the Robux is no longer restricted to the closed environment. Should a player "cash out" on the third-party site, the player can then reacquire their original amount of purchased Robux, plus or less the equivalent value of any virtual currency won or lost on the third-party site, in the Roblox environment. If a player loses casino credits on the third-party website, the operators keep the equivalent amount of the player's Robux. Then, in the normal course of Roblox's operation, either party can convert their Robux to real world currency in an exchange rate set by Roblox, which allegedly involves Roblox taking a portion of the transaction principle as a fee. All transactions involving the transfer of Robux happen within the Roblox environment, are monitored and recorded by Roblox, and are not restricted by Roblox despite Roblox arguably being on notice of the nature of these transactions. Thus, the complaint alleges, Roblox is complicit to and profits from an illegal gambling operation. Precedent for these types of cases has varied significantly across courts. Generally, the more restrictive the virtual environment is regarding the liquidity and fluidity of the virtual currency, the more favorable the outcome has been for the game operator. Additionally, clear restrictions on the use and conversion of virtual currency in the game's terms of service, combined with efforts to enforce such terms[3], have also proven to be persuasive to courts in demonstrating that a game or app was not an illegal gambling device. However, given the general lack of geofencing features on these types of games and their widespread availability and use on the internet, operators should ensure a comprehensive review of all state and federal gaming prohibitions to ensure the compatibility of their product with the jurisdictions in which the game is either offered or accessible. [1] Virtual gambling in open and closed-loop environments and associated case law is discussed in an article written by Jones Walker partner Marc Dunbar and Special Counsel Daniel McGinn, published in the Summer 2023 IMGL Magazine, available here. [2] The complaint also focuses on the large population of minors that play Roblox, and the named Plaintiffs sue individually and as next friends of minors. [3] Roblox includes such terms, but the complaint alleges that the company does not enforce the terms and in complacent in the gambling operation. Roblox knows its Robux are being used to place bets in illegal virtual casinos, directly facilitates this transfer within the Roblox ecosystem, then imposes a fee on the ill-gotten gains accrued by the Gambling Website Defendants when they seek to convert Robux to cash. [GN] RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY), ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order certifying the following proposed class in this action (or in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate): All participants and beneficiaries of the Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan at any time from Oct. 1, 2015 to the date Russell was removed as the Plan's investment manager. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as the class representative and the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. Russell Trust operates as an investment advisor. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lsKAc8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com - and – Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Ben Bauer, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com bspecht@nka.com bbauer@nka.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that the Middle District of Tennessee recently denied a motion for class certification for a group of dental providers in a suit against SmileDirectClub ("SmileDirect"). Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00845, 2024 WL 559235 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2024). The plaintiffs in Ciccio consist of two groups: (1) dental care providers who objected to SmileDirect's marketing practices; and (2) consumers who were allegedly harmed by relying on SmileDirect for dental care. 2024 WL 559235, at *1. The plaintiffs alleged claims for false advertising, consumer protection violations, and fraud. Id. In June 2023, the dental care providers moved for certification of a nationwide provider class and two Florida and New York provider subclasses. Id. at *4. Under the Lanham Act, plaintiffs suing for false advertising must show direct economic or reputational harm caused by the defendant's advertising deception. Id. at *6 (citing Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 133 (2014)). The district court determined that while there were common issues among the group of dental providers, it was too difficult to connect a single misleading statement by SmileDirect to an actual economic injury suffered by the dental provider class. Id. *7. (The district court's order did not address the consumer class.) The dental providers relied on a survey in an effort to connect SmileDirect's advertising statement to their alleged economic injuries. Id. The survey was of a group of individuals accessing a replica of SmileDirect's website who were then asked to imagine coming across the website while researching treatment options. Id. at *8. The district court found the survey inadequate because it instructed the participants to follow a specific link directing them to focus solely either on the language challenged in the lawsuit or on a non-misleading alternative. Id. at *8-9. This prevented the participants from exploring the website freely and providing an unbiased response, because the survey "relied on an artificially created situation that was plainly designed to induce the survey respondents to place particular weight on the statement or omission at issue." Id. at *9. The district court reasoned that the survey's setup could not accurately gauge the actual rate of patient diversion or persuasion because "the allegedly misleading statements by SmileDirect would be only a handful of the potentially numerous messages that the plaintiffs received while 'shopping.'" Id. The plaintiffs also proffered an expert damages report, which relied on the problematic survey to prove their injury and allocation of damages. Id. at *9. The district court found that the damages expert report was unreliable because it (1) failed to bridge the gap between the survey results and the dental providers' damages; (2) failed to account for the individual variations between different dental practices and patient populations allegedly affected by SmileDirect's statements; and (3) could not estimate how many customers were actually exposed to SmileDirect's statements. Id. at *9-10. The district court acknowledged that "[a]bsolute precision may be impossible when thousands of claims are involved . . . and some degree of statistical approximation is acceptable in false advertising damages models." Id. at *10. But it nonetheless found that there is "a point at which approximation eclipses the truth so fully that the numbers produced cannot serve the purpose they were intended to serve." Id. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs' damages expert failed to produce a model that sufficiently allocated injury or damages to advance a class-wide resolution. Id. Analyzing Rule 23(a), the district court explained it had "no confidence that any one plaintiff could be considered to have a 'typical' claim." Id. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiffs could adequately represent the other class members. Id. As a result, the dental care providers failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) and Rule 23(a)(4). Id. Turning to Rule 23(b), the district court found that the variations between dental providers prevented the plaintiffs from satisfying Rule 23(b)(3) because those variations would create individual issues that predominated over shared issues. Id. The plaintiffs also failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because money damages were central to the case. Id. at *11. The plaintiffs asked the district court to certify the class in the alternative under Rule 23(c)(4), which would limit certification "to issues for which shared questions predominate, while leaving aspects of the class members' cases in which unshared issues predominate to be decided separately." Id. at *11. The court denied Plaintiffs' request to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class because the plaintiffs' inability to prove a class-wide injury extended not only to damages but also to the liability determination itself. Id. Takeaways: The decision in Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC demonstrates that a proposed false advertising class must take seriously the requirement that injury and damages for each class member must be directly linked to the defendant's allegedly false advertising. [GN] SYMETRA LIFE: Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by April 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline to file the Defendant's motion for March 28, 2024 summary judgment: -- Deadline to file Plaintiff's opposition to April 22, 2024 motion to exclude expert opinion: -- Deadline to file Plaintiff's Reply in April 22, 2024 support of class certification motion and any objection to Defendant's experts: -- Rebuttal reports from the Plaintiff's April 22, 2024 Expert witnesses under FRCP 2(a)(2) for Use in support of class certification: -- Deadline to file Defendant's reply brief April 26, 2024 in support of class certification: Symetra is an American family of companies providing retirement plans, employee benefits, annuities and life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rZzu1r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. David A. Hickey, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com hickey@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. SCHIRGER FEIERABEND, LLC 4520 Main Street, Ste. 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com The Defendant is represented by: Laura Geist, Esq. Yuhan Chi, Esq. Joshua Anderson, Esq. Xiaolin Chen, Esq. Naiara Toker, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAHER LLP San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 Facsimile: (415) 858-7599 E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com ychi@willkie.com jdanderson@willkie.com schen2@willkie.com ntoker@willkie.com - and - Medora A. Marisseau, Esq. KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 223-1313 Facsimile: (206) 682-7100 E-mail: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com T-MOBILE USA: Gets Court OK to Proceed an Appeal in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Harry Baldock, writing for Total Telecom, reports that Illinois U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin has ruled that T-Mobile can proceed with an appeal of a class action lawsuit that could cost the company billions of dollars in compensation. The class action lawsuit, which is being brought by seven subscribers of AT&T or Verizon, argues that the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile reduced competition in the wireless market to such an extent that it forced AT&T and Verizon to increase their prices. This, they say, saw tens to hundreds of millions of consumers paying more for their wireless services than they would have otherwise. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation as well as other remedies, which could even include the reversal of the Sprint -- T-Mobile merger entirely. Back in November, courts declined to dismiss the lawsuit at T-Mobile's request, saying that AT&T and Verizon's price increases could "plausibly" be linked to the merger. T-Mobile immediately signalled their intention to appeal the decision, saying that the case's "expansive conception of antitrust standing is unprecedented". The plaintiffs' lawyers, on the other hand, argued that a length appeal process would delay potential compensation and could make dissolving the merger more difficult. They subsequently argued that the case should be put before a jury before an appeal was presented. Now, Judge Durkin has confirmed that T-Mobile will be allowed to proceed with their appeal, with the operator arguing the plaintiffs' have not sufficiently alleged antitrust standing. Antitrust lawyers will be watching the proceedings of the case closely. Federal antitrust law allows consumers to bring private challenges against mergers and acquisitions, but cases arguing that a company's M&A activity had negatively affected a rival's customers are very rare. If the case is ultimately allowed to proceed, it could significantly expand the scope of future antitrust proceedings. [GN] T.L. CANNON: Dees Must File Class Cert Reply by April 24 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dees, et al., v. T.L. Cannon Corp. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01537 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 10, 2020), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order granting an extension of time regarding motion to certify class and for leave to file first amended complaint: -- Deadline for Defendants to file opposition April 3, 2024 to class certification and/or any cross-motion for summary judgment by: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file reply in April 24, 2024 support of class certification motion, and opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment by: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. T.L. Cannon owns and operates restaurant.[CC] TD BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZING FISHSTORE LLC d/b/a KRMS FARMS and WILDER MEDIA CT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00958-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order: (1) preliminarily approving the Parties' Settlement; (2) certifying the Settlement Classes; (3) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel; (4) approving the Notice Program; and (5) scheduling the final approval hearing. TD is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q5SrHj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB LEGAL P.C. One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 E-mail: rgolomb@golomblegal.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com TEVA CANADA: Appeals Court Dismisses Valsartan Recall Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laura Fric, Robert Carsona and Lauren Harper, writing for Osler, reports that the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited, affirming the denial of certification and dismissal of a proposed class action arising from the 2018 and 2019 recall of pharmaceutical products containing valsartan. Background The plaintiffs sought certification of an action seeking damages for the alleged increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in the future as a result of exposure to impurities detected in certain products containing valsartan. Notably, however, the proposed class action did not seek compensation for consumers who have been or may be diagnosed with cancer. The plaintiffs also sought damages for costs of medical services and monitoring, refunds for the drugs consumed, and costs for the drugs thrown away after the drugs were recalled. The claim also sought damages for psychological injury due to the shock of the recall. Court of Appeal affirms denial of certification The Court of Appeal confirmed there is no liability for negligence "in the air" and no right to be free from the prospect of damage, concluding that "under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, there can be no viable cause of action in negligence without actual damage." The Court found that, in this case, the claimed bodily injuries had not materialized and may never materialize. On psychological injury, the Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs failed to plead the material facts needed to support damages recoverable in tort. The Court stated that "the right to protection against psychiatric illness is limited and does not extend to an illness which would be suffered only by an unusually vulnerable person." In addition, the Court of Appeal found it was apparent that the assessment of psychological damages in this case would require proof of the harm suffered by the individual class members because the claims are "inherently individual in nature and idiosyncratic". The Court of Appeal found the certification judge did not err in dismissing and declining to certify the plaintiffs' remaining claims, including for pure economic loss. Although the Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal by finding the certification judge did not err in dismissing the action under the s. 5(1)(a) cause of action criterion, the Court also confirmed that the certification judge correctly applied the "some basis in fact" principles for the common issues criterion under s. 5(1)(c), and committed no error in finding that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the common issues criterion. [GN] THOMAS GILES: Federal Claims Dismissed with Prejudice in Oldaker ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANIRA YESENIA OLDAKER et. al., v. THOMAS P. GILES, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-00224-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge W. Louis Sands entered an order that the ICDC Defendants' motions are granted-in-part, denied-in-part, and denied-as-moot-in-part: As a result, all federal claims against Defendant LaSalle Southeast, LLC; Defendant Warden David Paulk; all individual Irwin County Detention Center Defendants in their official capacities; and Defendants Cheryl Slacks, Coretta Battle, Taura Amber Hughes, Latoshia Coney, Janet Vaughn, and Marteka George in their individual capacities are dismissed-with-prejudice. The Plaintiffs' state law claims against those Defendants are dismissed-without-prejudice because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. The Plaintiffs allege five federal claims against Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC) Defendants, and seven state-law claims against the ICDC Defendants. Plaintiff Oldaker is a woman who was held in ICDC from Jan. 1, 2020, until Dec. 30, 2020. When she arrived at ICDC, she experienced symptoms related to a 2014 hysterectomy, which had previously been treated with an estrogen patch. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lSAveW at no extra charge.[CC] TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Caper, Tran Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ TMC The Metals Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2024, the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated Caper, Tran class suit in the Eastern District of New York. On October 28, 2021, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain executives in federal district court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Caper v. TMC The Metals Company Inc. F/K/A Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corp., Gerard Barron and Scott Leonard. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Messrs. Barron and Leonard violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose information about our operations and prospects during the period from March 4, 2021 to October 5, 2021. On November 15, 2021, a second complaint containing substantially the same allegations was filed, captioned Tran v. TMC the Metals Company, Inc. These cases have been consolidated. On March 6, 2022, a lead plaintiff was selected. An amended complaint was filed on May 12, 2022, reflecting substantially similar allegations, with the Plaintiff seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the alleged wrongdoings. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and filed and served the plaintiff a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2022 and intends to defend against this lawsuit. On July 12, 2023, an oral hearing on the motion to dismiss was held. The parties are currently awaiting a ruling. TMC the metals company Inc. is a deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the collection and processing of polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor in international waters of the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean), located approximately 1,300 nautical miles southwest of San Diego, California. TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Sur-Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing of portions of Trans Union's sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification that contain or reflect Confidential. Trans Union submits that the portions of the Sur-Reply necessitating sealing meet the requirements of the Protective Order for being filed with the Court under seal because (1) the public disclosure of the procedures reflected in the Sur-Reply would undermine the efficacy of the confidential procedures, and (2) the procedures constitute trade secrets The Plaintiff alleges that Trans Union violated Section 1681e(b) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, and related California statutes, by including bankruptcy information in the Plaintiff's credit report that he alleges was inaccurate. The parties have agreed, pursuant to the Protective Order, that the materials designated by Trans Union as Confidential Information should remain under seal. Further, the Court has found sealing warranted for information and documents reflecting the same Trans Union policies and procedures. Trans Union operates as global information and insights company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S5R8c5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael O'Neil, Esq. Albert E. Hartmann, Esq. Kristen DeGrande, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 E-mail: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com ahartmann@reedsmith.com kdegrande@reedsmith.com - and - Joshua M. Peles, Esq. REED SMITH LLP Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: jpeles@reedsmith.com TRICIDA INC: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on March 11, 2024, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against a biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and its CEO. Pardi et al., v. Tricida, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the likelihood that the Company's new drug would receive accelerated FDA approval. The Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and was voluntarily dismissed, and the CEO moved to dismiss. Plaintiff alleges that: In May 2018, the Company completed its Phase 3 clinical trials for a new drug intended to slow the progression of chronic kidney disease. On June 5, 2018, the Company announced that Phase 3 trials were conducted at 47 sites in the United States and Europe and its CEO allegedly stated that the study met "both its primary and secondary endpoints in a statistically significant manner." In late August 2019, the Company submitted its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA under the FDA's Accelerated Approval Program. In a May 7, 2020 earnings call, the CEO allegedly stated that an upcoming meeting with the FDA was canceled "due in part to the logistical challenges posed by COVID-19." Beginning in May 2020, the Company allegedly began to receive indications from the FDA that there were issues with its NDA, and in early May, executives of the Company met with FDA representatives, who purportedly shared concerns regarding "the magnitude and durability" of the effect of the drug and "the applicability of data" from the Phase 3 trials "to the U.S. population." Plaintiff further alleged that: on July 15, 2020, the Company disclosed that it was notified by the FDA of deficiencies that precluded labeling and post-marketing of the drug; on August 24, 2020, the Company disclosed that it had received a response letter from the FDA explaining that the drug's Phase 3 trial was inadequate on its own to demonstrate the drug's efficacy; on October 29, 2020, the Company further disclosed that the FDA was unlikely to rely on the Company's data and would require additional evidence of the drug's efficacy; and on February 25, 2021, the Company disclosed that the FDA denied the appeal of its application denial. Plaintiff, on behalf of the Company's investors, filed suit in January 2021. In March 2023, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and was voluntarily dismissed from the action, leaving the Company's CEO as the only remaining defendant. The CEO moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege any false or misleading statement of a material fact and that plaintiff failed to adequately plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. The Court first considered and rejected plaintiff's argument that certain opinion statements were actionable. For example, plaintiff alleged that the CEO's statement that the Phase 3 trial "met both its primary and secondary endpoints in a highly statistically significant manner" was misleading because the CEO "failed to disclose that the FDA had repeatedly indicated its disagreement that [the trial's] endpoint was substantial enough to demonstrate the trial's clinical effectiveness." Plaintiff also claimed that the "optimistic statements about the NDA were false and misleading because they failed to disclose significant issues and feedback communicated by the FDA." The Court held that such statements were inactionable opinions, because "they inherently reflect[ed] the speaker's assessment of and judgment about the underlying circumstances" and that plaintiff failed "to plausibly allege that [the CEO] did not hold the optimistic beliefs he professed, or that these beliefs [were] objectively untrue." Moreover, the Court agreed with the CEO that "there is no general requirement under the securities laws for a company to engage in a rolling, communication-by-communication disclosure of every detail arising from the back-and-forth dialogue with the FDA throughout its complex review and approval process, or to adopt the FDA's position as correct and share it with the public when discussing its product." The Court did find, however, that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendants' statement that the FDA Advisory Committee meeting with the Company was canceled due to COVID-19 logistics "was false or misleading given that the FDA never cited COVID-19 logistics as the reason for the cancellation," and because plaintiff directly alleged that the meeting was canceled because of "the FDA's concerns that there were too many problems with the NDA to even warrant convening an Advisory Committee," citing documents detailing communications from the FDA to the Company in which the FDA identified "significant issues" with the Phase 3 trial. The Court found that there was a "substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the [allegedly] omitted fact . . . would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information available." The Court, however, found that certain other alleged omissions regarding the likelihood of achieving FDA approval were not sufficiently alleged to be misleading as plaintiff did not explain how those alleged omissions "affected the 'total mix' of information available to a reasonable investor" or why the disclosures defendants did make gave reasonable investors a "misleading impression of the actual state of affairs." Turning to scienter, the Court held that plaintiff plausibly alleged scienter with respect to the CEO's statement that the FDA Advisory Committee meeting was canceled in part due to "the logistical challenges posed by COVID-19," finding that plaintiff plausibly alleged the CEO "intentionally or recklessly misrepresented the true reasons" for the cancellation of the meeting. However, the Court rejected plaintiff's argument that allegations that the CEO "attended meetings at which the FDA specifically cautioned [the Company] against relying on patient data from Eastern European countries" were sufficient to allege scienter, stating that the CEO's "literally true characterization of the trial location as ‘Europe'" did not amount to "an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care." The Court further noted that, in any event, the Company "specifically directed the market to information disclosing the location of the trials," which further cut against any inference of scienter in connection with those statements. Accordingly, the Court concluded that plaintiff adequately pled a Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claim as to the alleged statement that FDA Advisory Committee meeting was canceled "due in part to the logistical challenges posed by COVID-19," but granted the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, as to all other claims, due to the failure to adequately plead falsity and scienter. [GN] TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seek to Certify Class of Students ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES and JOHN ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02505-DJP-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes of persons defined as: -- Tuition Class: All enrolled undergraduate and graduate students during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition, or who were credited as having paid, but had their classes and educational services moved to online only learning, excluding students at Tulane's School of Professional Advancement, Masters of Jurisprudence in Labor & Employment Law, graduate students at Tulane's School of Social Work, and Center for Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH) Students; -- Fee Class: All enrolled students during the Spring 2020 semester at Tulane University, who paid the Mandatory Fees, or who were credited as having paid, but had the related services, facilities, and campus access restricted or eliminated, excluding students at Tulane's School of Professional Advancement, Masters of Jurisprudence in Labor & Employment Law, graduate students at Tulane's School of Social Work, and Center for Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH) students (the "Fee Class"). On Sept. 14, 2020, Ms. Jones filed this class action alleging that Tulane breached its contractual obligation to provide students with in person, on campus educational services, or in the alternative was unjustly enriched by its failure to provide such services while retaining the full pre-paid cost of the promised in person education. On Sept. 15, 2020, the Plaintiff John Ellis filed a separate action styled John Ellis v. Tulane University, as a class action making substantially similar allegations. On Dec. 11, 2020, the two above cases were consolidated pursuant to the parties' motion. ECF 50. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6cWu7N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com cohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and- Richard C. Dalton, Esq. RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC Carencro, LA 70520-0358 Telephone: (337) 371-0375 E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com - and- Yvette Golan, Esq. THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC 529 14th St. NW Suite 914 Telephone: (866) 298-4150 Facsimile: (928) 441-8250 E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seeks to Seal Confidential Docs -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES and JOHN ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02505-DJP-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to consider whether materials marked "Confidential" and/or "Highly Confidential" by Tulane should be sealed. The motion will specifically refer to Exhibits AI, AJ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AW, AX, and AY to their Motion for Class Certification, filed concurrently with the present Motion, as well as those portions of the Memorandum of Law which quote or otherwise reveal the contents of material subject to the Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BtE61Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - David A. Szwak, Esq. BODENHEIMER, JONES & SZWAK, LLC 16 Travis Street, Ste. 800 Mid South Tower Shreveport, LA 71101 Telephone: (318) 424-1400 Facsimile: (221) 6555 - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com cohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Richard C. Dalton, Esq. RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC Carencro, LA 70520-0358 Telephone: (337) 371-0375 E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com - and - Yvette Golan, Esq. THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC 529 14th St. NW Suite 914 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (866) 298-4150 Facsimile: (928) 441-8250 E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com TULANE UNIV: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Opposition Date -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES and JOHN ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02505-DJP-MBN (E.D. La.), the Parties move the Court for an order modifying the case management deadlines: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Class Certification Opposition Due: Apr. 16, 2024 Apr. 22, 2024 Class Certification Reply Due: Apr. 30, 2024 Apr. 30, 2024 Class Certification Submission Date: May 1, 2024 May 1, 2024 Summary Judgment Opposition Due: Mar. 26, 2024 Apr. 16, 2024 Summary Judgment Reply Due: Apr. 2, 2024 Apr. 30, 2024 Summary Judgment Submission Date: Apr. 3, 2024 May 1, 2024 A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MbOmNa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Yvette Golan, Esq. THE GOLAN FIRM 2000 M Street, NW, Suite #750-A Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (866) 298-4150 Facsimile: (928) 441-8250 E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com - and – David A. Szwak, Esq. BODENHEIMER, JONES & SZWAK, LLC 416 Travis Street, Ste. 800 Mid South Tower Shreveport, LA 71101 Telephone: (318) 424-1400 Facsimile: 221-6555 The Defendant is represented by: James M. Garner, Esq. Martha Y. Curtis, Esq. Joshua S. Force, Esq. Stuart D. Kottle, Esq. SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 299-2100 Facsimile: (504) 299-2300 E-mail: jgarner@shergarner.com mcurtis@shergarner.com jforce@shergarner.com skottle@shergarner.com - and - M. Scott Barnard, Esq. Brennan H. Meier, Esq. Jessica Mannon, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2300 N. Field Street, Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-2800 Facsimile: (214) 969-4343 E-mail: sbarnard@akingump.com bhmeier@akingump.com jmannon@akingump.com TWO JINN: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by April 26 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA MEDINA and ALICIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TWO JINN, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, and ADLER WALLACH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a AWA COLLECTIONS, Case No. 3:22-cv-02540-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order re: briefing schedule for motion to certify class Event Current Stipulated Deadline Deadline Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Apr. 5, 2024 Apr. 26, 2024 Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class: On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify class. On March 1, 2024, the Defendants filed their oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Two Jinn provides consulting services. The Company offers bail bond, payment options, and other legal services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jCswAA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. J. Aaron Lawson, Esq. Yaman Salahi, Esq. Julian Zhu, Esq. Natasha Fernandez-Silber, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com alawson@edelson.com ysalahi@edelson.com jzhu@edelson.com nfernandezsilber@edelson.com The Defendants are represented by: Beatriz Mejia, Esq. K.C. Jaski, Esq. Katelyn L. Kang, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com kjaski@cooley.com kkang@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com - and - David Kaminski, Esq. Martin Schannong, Esq. Michael P. Lavigne, Esq. CARLSON & MESSER LLP 5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 242-2200 Facsimile: (310) 242-2222 E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com lavignem@cmtlaw.com lavignem@cmtlaw.com UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Perissa Suit Due Dec. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBEL PERISSA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION, and USPA PROPERTIES INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-10650-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than 30 days after entry of this order. -- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than 90 days after Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is decided. -- The parties are to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York. -- Initial requests for production of documents shall be served by April 12, 2024. -- Interrogatories shall be served by April 12, 2024, subject to follow up interrogatories before the close of fact discovery. -- Depositions shall be completed by 90 days after Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is decided. -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by Dec. 6, 2024; any Opposition shall be filed by Jan. 17, 2025; and Reply shall be filed by February 28, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzQMF3 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in National Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, and ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00745-PLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul Friedman entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class settlement and for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court said that the Plaintiffs and the United States have reached an historic settlement agreement in this case that reimburses PACER users for $100 million of the fees they paid within a period of over eight years. The Agreement reimburses many small-scale PACER users for all of the fees they paid during this period. And it reimburses large-scale users substantially, and in proportion to what they paid. The Court finds the Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. A. The Settlement Class and Fund The settlement class includes all persons or entities who paid PACER fees in the period beginning six years before the Named Plaintiffs filed their original complaint (April 22, 2010) and ending on the date the judiciary stopped using PACER fees to fund prohibited expenses (May 31, 2018) – with the exception of those who opted out, of federal agencies, and of Class Counsel. This class includes at least several hundred thousand members. The settlement common fund totals $125 million. From this fund, at least 80%, or $100 million, is to be distributed to class members. Up to 20%, or $25 million, is to be used for attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and service awards for the class representatives. As to the attorney's fees and service awards, the Agreement specifies that "the Court will ultimately determine whether the amounts requested are reasonable.". The Agreement further specifies that service awards cannot exceed $10,000 per class representative. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Je0Cva at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MORINVILLE and GILBERT P. HYATT, v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Case No. 1:19-cv-01779-CKK (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a three-week extension of the Defendant's deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. According to the Court's Oct. 12, 2023, minute order, the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently due on April 19, 2024, and the Plaintiffs' reply is due on May 20, 2024. The Defendant requests that the Court extend Defendant's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by three weeks—to May 10, 2024. The Defendant conferred with the Plaintiffs' counsel about this request, and the Plaintiffs consent. The Defendant also requests, with the consent of the Plaintiffs, that the Plaintiffs' deadline for their reply be extended by the same length of time—to June 10, 2024. United States Patent is responsible for granting U.S. patents and registering U.S. trademarks. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VLinXh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Gerardi, Esq. Laurel H. Lum, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L St. NW, Room 12212 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-8177 Facsimile: (202) 616-8460 E-mail: laurel.h.lum@usdoj.gov UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Seeks Reconsideration of March 13 Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA VALDEZ, RICKY ABEYTA, MARK FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL CHILDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KEATE WRIGHT and ERIC SHORT, individually, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01015-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to reconsider its March 13, 2024, Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court reassess the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification with the correct understanding that the identity and contact information of the remaining 13 potential class members are unknown, their due process rights would be affected if class certification were denied, and the ability for putative class members to initiate individuals actions on all of their unpaid wages will elapse in mere weeks from today's date, not months. Universal Logistics is a full -service logistics company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ozrIhC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. THE WILHITE LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden St. Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 ext. 1090 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com vguzman@wilhitelawfirm.com UPS STORE: Must File Any Reply by April 8 ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCLAREN v. THE UPS STORE, INC. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-14424-RK-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert Kirsch entered an order on the remaining filings deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File April 1, 2024 any Opposition: -- Defendants' Deadline to File April 8, 2024 any Reply: -- Motion Return Date: April 15, 2024 UPS Store is a franchisor of retail shipping, postal, printing and business service centers. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWxE3b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared M. Placitella, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 127 Maple Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-3003 Facsimile: (732) 747-9004 E-mail: jmplacitella@cprlaw.com VARSITY BRANDS: Indirect Purchasers Can Add Class Rep in Jones -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA JONES and CHRISTINA LORENZEN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order: -- granting Indirect Purchasers' motion to add class representative, -- denying the Defendants' motion for sanctions, and -- denying Indirect Purchasers' cross-motion for sanctions. The Defendants have not shown that Indirect Purchasers' conduct is sanctionable under Rule 11. Indirect Purchasers' standing arguments have an adequate basis in law and fact. Further, Indirect Purchasers have sought to remedy any flaw in their pleadings by seeking to add an additional class representative, which the Court is permitting. As a result, the Defendants' motion for sanctions is denied, the Court says. Indirect Purchasers were on notice that there was a potential standing issue long before the class certification stage. Although the Court did not find this conduct to be sanctionable, neither does it find Defendants' Motion for Sanctions to be frivolous. Therefore, the Cross-Motion for Sanctions is also denied. Varsity is a host of competitive cheerleading camps and competitions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hlOtQA at no extra charge.[CC] VISA USA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Merchant Interchange Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Siegel Bernard, writing for nytimes.com, reports that Visa and Mastercard have agreed to cap the so-called swipe fees they charge to merchants that accept their credit cards, as part of a class-action settlement that could save merchants an estimated $30 billion over five years -- the latest development in a nearly 20-year legal battle. Each time a customer uses one of its credit cards, Visa or Mastercard collects a swipe fee -- also called an interchange fee -- for processing the transaction, which it shares with banks issuing the cards. The merchants pass those fees along to customers, a practice that effectively inflates prices (and may motivate discounts given to customers paying with cash). The settlement, which is subject to court approval, can be traced back to a 2005 lawsuit by merchants arguing that they paid excessive fees to accept Visa and Mastercard credit cards. As more consumer spending has shifted to credit cards over the years, processing fees have also risen. To accept Visa and Mastercard, U.S. merchants paid $101 billion in total fees in 2023, including $72 billion in interchange fees, according to the Nilson Report, which tracks the payments industry. The fees also generate profits for big banks that issue the cards, and indirectly pay for credit card rewards programs, which aren't expected to be affected by the settlement deal. In addition to putting a ceiling on the swipe fees -- an average of 2.26 percent of the transaction, according to Nilson -- Visa and Mastercard agreed to roll back the posted swipe fee of every merchant by at least 0.04 percentage points for at least three years. For five years, the companies will not raise the fees above the posted rates at the end of last year. Systemwide, the average fee must be at least 0.07 percentage points below the current average rate, a calculation that an independent auditor will verify. Merchants will also be permitted to adjust their prices based on the costs associated with accepting different cards, while letting customers know why some cards -- typically business cards and those with more rewards and perks -- cost more than others. "This settlement achieves our goal of eliminating anticompetitive restraints and providing immediate and meaningful savings to all U.S. merchants, small and large," Robert Eisler, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. But not all merchants, particularly smaller ones, are as optimistic about the proposed changes. Temporary fee reductions fall short of what's needed and underscore why Congress needs to pass legislation to promote a more competitive marketplace, said the Merchants Payments Coalition, a trade group representing retailers, supermarkets, convenience stores, gas stations and online merchants. "The settlement does nothing to actually bring competitive market forces to swipe fees or change the behavior of a cartel that centrally fixes rates and bars competition," said Christopher Jones, a member of the coalition's executive committee and senior vice president of government relations at the National Grocers Association. "Instead, it tries to provide token, temporary relief and then allows the card companies to raise rates yet again." Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois who has long fought to keep interchange fees in check, introduced bipartisan legislation in June that would require big banks issuing credit cards to enable the cards to be processed on at least one other network besides Visa or Mastercard, in an effort to create more options for merchants beyond the two industry heavyweights. Doug Kantor, general counsel at the National Association of Convenience Stores, said the settlement provisions that would allow merchants to charge more for credit cards that carried higher fees will be complicated to carry out and pitted the merchants against their customers. "Even if they do use them, it makes the merchants the tax collector for the charges -- and it makes merchants the bad guy in the eyes of the consumer, when it's really the credit card companies that are squeezing everyone when it comes to big fees," Mr. Kantor added. Neither Visa nor Mastercard admitted to any wrongdoing. In a statement, Mastercard's chief legal officer and general counsel, Rob Beard, said the agreement "brings closure to a longstanding dispute by delivering substantial certainty and value to business owners, including flexibility in how they manage acceptance of card programs." Separately, Kim Lawrence, Visa's president, North America, said the company had "reached a settlement with meaningful concessions that address true pain points small businesses have identified." [GN] WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Settles False Advertising Suit for $28.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marjorie Valbrun, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that Walden University, a for-profit online university, has settled a class-action lawsuit that accused the institution of targeting women and Black students with false advertising. The university has agreed to pay a $28.5 million settlement, according to U.S. News and World Report. The university, which is headquartered in Minneapolis, reportedly misled prospective students about the length of time it would take to complete doctorate degrees in business administration and collected millions of dollars in extra tuition payments and fees as a result, according to the lawsuit. It alleged that Walden purposely prolonged academic projects required for the degrees. Walden officials said in a written statement that it agreed to the settlement "in pursuit of the best interests of all parties involved," U.S. News reported. "Students alleged that Walden masked deception as diversity by targeting their DBA degrees at Black and female students who were hoping to advance their careers," Aaron Ament, president of the National Student Legal Defense Network, told U.S. News. The organization filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Maryland along with civil rights law firm Relman Colfax. Inside Higher Ed reported in 2023 that Walden topped the list of institutions where graduate students owed more collectively than what they borrowed to pay for college. According to an analysis of students' debt and earnings, Walden's graduate students who took out loans in 2013--14 and 2014--15 owed $289 million more in loans five years after entering repayment, the article said. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Court Appoints Zimmerman Law as Co-Lead Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01223-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g) to appoint Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. and DannLaw Firm as interim co-lead class counsel. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rMw2k2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alisa Rose Adams, Esq. THE DANNLAW FIRM 26100 Towne Center Drive Foothill Ranch, CA 92610-3442 Telephone: (949) 200-8755 Facsimile: (866) 843-8308 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com aadams@dannlaw.com WOODSTREAM CORP: Maroney Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maroney, et al. v. Woodstream Corporation, Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for the deadline on Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification from April 11, 2024, to June 25, 2024. On Oct. 16, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order setting a deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification by April 11, 2024. The Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery requests on Defendant on Oct. 23, 2023. On Dec. 1, 2023, the Defendant served its responses and objections to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. On Jan. 12, 2024, the Parties filed a Stipulated Order Regarding the Protocol for Producing Documents and Electronically Stored Information. Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife caring and control products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bhQRk5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7127 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com ********* 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 2024. 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 ***