/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240506.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 6, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 91
Headlines
2953 BROADWAY: Court Recommends Denial of Class Certification Bid
3M COMPANY: Phoenix Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
ALI TORABI DDS: Bowen Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
ANTHONY DECHELLIS: Parties Agree to Stay Stevenson & Rossi I Suits
APACHE CORP: Court Mulls Moving Consolidated Suit to E.D. Oklahoma
AVANADE INC: Bid for Class Certification Extended to Jan 17, 2025
BAY AREA: Court Approves Stipulation for More Time in Grace Suit
BOSTON COLLEGE: Summary Judgment Bid in Sellers Suit Partly OK'd
CARGILL MEAT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Marin Continued to Nov. 18
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Baird Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice
CHAUTAUQUA, NY: GCFCU Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Settlement in Patora Suit Gets Final Nod
COLLETTE PETERS: Flores Loses Class Certification Bid
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Filing in RPRF Suit Due May 21
CORECIVIC INC: Must Leave to Restrict Confidential Exhibits Access
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Water Island Class Suit
CROWN ROOFING: Plaintiff's Settlement Proposal Due June 1
FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Stephenson Partly Wins Bid to Enforce Settlement
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Stayed in Williams Suit
GEICO: MSPA Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
GREGORY W. BECKER: As Agreed, Court Stays Rossi & Stevenson Suits
GREGORY W. BECKER: Parties Agree to Stay Stevenson & Rossi I Suits
GUEST SERVICES: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Matthews Suit
ILLUMINA INC: Kangas, Roy and Fund Securities Suits Consolidated
IQVIA INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Doe Suit
KAREN BENNETTE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Charles Suit
KIMBER TAYLOR: Bid to Bifurcate Chianne Class Action Tossed
LEE COUNTY, AL: Court Dismisses Ritter Action w/o Prejudice
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Turner Class Action
LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cuevas Modified to Dec. 30
META PLATFORMS: H&R's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Hunt Suit OK'd
METRO NORTH: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Davis Class Suit
NESTLE USA: Parties Seek Partial Stay of Discovery
NEW YORK LIFE: Linhart Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
NONSTOP ADMIN: Parties Seek More Time for Expert Disclosure Filing
OREGON: Bid for Protective Order in Wyatt B. Suit Granted in Part
PHILIPS RS: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
PRO CUSTOM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Niemczyk Extended to June 7
PRO CUSTOM: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Walters Extended to June 7
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Cert Bid Reply Brief Extended to May 31
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Watson's Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits OK'd
RAY JONES: Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Bid Response
RELAX SERVICES: Go's Bid for Consolidation With Esturas Suit OK'd
RELAX SERVICES: S.D. New York Consolidates Go and Esturas Suits
SCRIBE MEDIA: Cormier Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Employees
SHAWN EMMONS: Revised Contempt Order Entered in Daughtry Class Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Discovery in Teva Securities Begins Jan. 2013
WALMART INC: Parties Seeks to Amend Class Cert Filing in Gagetta
WHITESTONE HOME: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Robertson Suit Denied
*********
2953 BROADWAY: Court Recommends Denial of Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XING YE, et al., v. 2953
BROADWAY INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04941-JHR-JW (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jennifer Willis recommends that the motion for class
certification be denied.
The Court is satisfied that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) have
been met. However, because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
the elements of Rule 23(a), the Court recommends the Plaintiffs'
motion be denied.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to properly compensate
deliverymen under minimum wage and overtime wage laws, and failing
to provide proper time-of-hire notice and paystubs as required
under New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
In June 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Motion was
referred to this Court on March 26, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are all former employees of Vine Sushi who worked as
deliverymen after June 4, 2012.
A copy of the Court's report & recommendation dated April 26, 2024,
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e18g3I at no extra charge.[CC]
3M COMPANY: Phoenix Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Louis Phoenix, et al., and others similarly
situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2024-901029.00
was removed from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
on April 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00486-RDP.
The Plaintiffs, Louis Phoenix et al., seek to hold Tyco and certain
other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling
aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") that Plaintiff alleges has
resulted in contamination. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the release of
those substances into Plaintiffs' water supplies has caused them to
sustain personal injuries and bioaccumulation of PFAS in their
bodies.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory M. Taube, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30363
Phone: (404) 322-6000
Fax: (404) 322-6050
Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com
ALI TORABI DDS: Bowen Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALI Torabi, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C. The case is styled as C. Jeffery Bowen, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. ALI Torabi, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C. doing business as: Flawless Smile Dentistry, Case No.
4:24-cv-00173-SH (N.D. Okla., April 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
ALI Torabi, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. doing business as Flawless Smile
Dentistry -- https://www.flawlesssmiledentistry.com/ -- offers
superior dental care providing exceptional services in Broken Arrow
and Claremore, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Richardson, Esq.
Colton Richardson, Esq.
RICHARDSON RICHARDSON BOUDREAUX
7447 S. Lewis Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74136
Phone: (918) 492-7674
Fax: (918) 493-1925
Email: Clr@rrbok.com
colton@rrbok.com
ANTHONY DECHELLIS: Parties Agree to Stay Stevenson & Rossi I Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California signed a Stipulation and Order
staying Stevenson and Rossi I Actions filed by the parties in the
lawsuits entitled KIM STEVENSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY W.
BECKER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02277-HSG (N.D. Cal.);
STEPHEN ROSSI, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY W. BECKER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02335-HSG (N.D. Cal.); and STEPHEN
ROSSI, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANTHONY DECHELLIS, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 24-cv-01674-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The Stipulation and Order relates to the certification of order
denying motions for remand for appeal and corresponding stay of
proceedings.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and the Court's March 28, 2024
Order Denying Motions to Remand, Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson, Howard
Tarlow, and Stephen Rossi and Defendants Gregory W. Becker, Daniel
J. Beck, Eric A. Benhamou, John S. Clendening, Richard D. Daniels,
Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. Friedman, Karen Hon, Jeffrey
N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D.
Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, KPMG LLP, Benhamou
Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, Scale Venture Partners,
Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
entered into the Stipulation.
On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson and Howard Tarlow filed
a putative securities class action against certain Defendants in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Stevenson, et al. v. Becker, et al., No. 23CV413949 (the "Stevenson
Action").
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative
securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara, alleging substantially similar claims against the
same Defendants named in the Stevenson Action and also naming as
Defendants Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale
Venture Partners, captioned Rossi v. Becker, et al., No. 23CV414120
(the "Rossi I Action").
On Feb. 15, 2024, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative
securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara, alleging substantially similar claims against
Defendants Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, captioned Rossi v. DeChellis, et al., No.
24CV431200 (the "Rossi II Action") (together with the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, the "State Actions").
Certain Defendants removed the State Actions to the District Court
for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs filed
motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions back to state
court, and the Parties to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions briefed
and argued those motions to remand before Judge Gilliam.
On March 27, 2024, pursuant to a stipulation of all parties, the
Plaintiffs submitted an administrative motion to relate the Rossi
II Action to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions and, as of the date
of this filing, the Court has not yet ruled on relatedness.
On March 28, 2024, the Court issued the March 28 Order, which
denied the Plaintiffs' motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I
Actions, and further held that the interests of clarity would be
best served by definitive guidance from the Ninth Circuit as to the
recurring legal question of whether Section 22(a) of the 1933
Securities Act ("1933 Act") bars removal of even actions "related
to" a bankruptcy action pursuant to Section 1452(a), and thus
directed the Parties to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions to submit
a stipulation and proposed order certifying an interlocutory appeal
of the March 28 Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) (the "Interlocutory
Appeal").
The Parties agree that staying the proceedings in district court in
Stevenson and Rossi I will best serve the interests of judicial
economy, conservation of time and resources, and orderly management
of Stevenson and Rossi I.
Plaintiff Rossi believes remand of the Rossi II Action to state
court is appropriate on the same bases set forth in the Remand
Motions in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions. The Defendants in the
Rossi II Action oppose remand.
Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II Action agree
that the March 28 Order will be determinative of whether the Rossi
II Action is remanded to state court unless the March 28 Order is
reversed, vacated, or modified by the Interlocutory Appeal. In
which case the determination of the remand issue by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Interlocutory Appeal will
determine whether the Rossi II Action is remanded to state court.
Upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II
Action anticipate submitting a stipulation staying the proceedings
in district court in the Rossi II Action pending determination of
the Interlocutory Appeal.
The Parties have met and conferred as directed by the Court in the
March 28 Order and submit this stipulation and proposed order
accordingly.
Now therefore, the Parties stipulate and agree that the proceedings
in district court in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions will be
stayed pending the resolution of the forthcoming Interlocutory
Appeal, and no Defendant in the Stevenson or Rossi I Actions will
have any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaints in the Stevenson or Rossi I Actions prior to resolution
of the forthcoming Interlocutory Appeal and a schedule is,
thereafter, set for the Defendants to respond.
Upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II
Action will submit a stipulation, subject to Court approval,
staying the proceedings in district court in the Rossi II Action
pending determination of the Interlocutory Appeal.
In addition to being binding on all parties to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, the March 28 Order will be binding on the parties
to the Rossi II Action with respect to, and determinative of, the
Plaintiff's expected motion to remand the Rossi II Action to state
court, unless the March 28 Order is reversed, vacated, or modified
by the Interlocutory Appeal, in which case the determination of the
remand issue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
the Interlocutory Appeal will be determinative of whether the two
actions, as well as the Rossi II Action, are remanded to the state
court.
The Parties agree that the Stipulation is entered into without
prejudice to any Party seeking any interim relief. Nothing in the
Stipulation will be construed as a waiver of any of the Defendants'
rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any
defenses, except as to sufficiency of service of process, that the
Defendants would otherwise have, including jurisdictional
defenses.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated April
11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/8kx43ubp from
PacerMonitor.com.
GIRARD SHARP LLP, Daniel C. Girard -- dgirard@girardsharp.com --
Adam E. Polk -- apolk@girardsharp.com -- Jordan Elias --
jelias@girardsharp.com -- Sean P. Greene -- sgreene@girardsharp.com
-- in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kim
Stevenson and Howard Tarlow.
HEDIN HALL LLP, David W. Hall -- dhall@hedinhall.com -- Armen
Zohrabian -- azohrabian@hedinhall.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephen Rossi.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, MICHAEL G. BONGIORNO --
michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- in New York City; TIMOTHY J.
PERLA -- timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- ERIKA M. SCHUTZMAN --
erika.schutzman@wilmerhale.com -- in Boston, Massachusetts; MICHAEL
A. MUGMON -- michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Counsel for Defendants Eric A. Benhamou, Richard D.
Daniels, Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. Friedman, Jeffrey
N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D.
Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, Benhamou Global
Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale Venture Partners.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Christopher W. Johnstone
-- chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com -- in Palo Alto, California;
Peter G. Neiman -- peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com -- Jessica N.
Djilani -- jessica.djilani@wilmerhale.com -- in New York City,
Attorneys for Defendant Karen Hon.
ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP, James N. Kramer --
jkramer@orrick.com -- Alexander K. Talarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- in San Francisco, California, Attorneys
for Defendant Gregory W. Becker.
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, Jennifer S. Windom --
jwindom@kramerlevin.com -- in Washington, D.C.; Kristopher Kastens
-- kkastens@kramerlevin.com -- in Redwood Shores, California; Barry
H. Berke -- bberke@kramerlevin.com -- Darren A. Laverne --
dlaverne@kramerlevin.com -- Daniel M. Ketani --
dketani@kramerlevin.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendant Daniel J. Beck.
DLA PIPER LLP (US), Richard H. Zelichov --
richard.zelichov@us.dlapiper.com -- in Los Angeles, California;
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP, Bruce G. Vanyo -- bruce@katten.com --
Paul S. Yong -- paul.yong@katten.com -- in Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Defendant John S. Clendening.
KING & SPALDING LLP, Lisa R. Bugni -- lbugni@kslaw.com -- in San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant KPMG LLP.
BRAUN HAGEY & BORDEN LLP, Ellen Leonida -- leonida@braunhagey.com
-- in San Francisco, California; FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEIILER ADELMAN &
ROBBINS LLP, Jason C. Rubinstein -- jrubinstein@fklaw.com -- in New
York City, Attorneys for Defendant Anthony DeChellis.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Nicole L. Chessari -- NChessari@goodwinlaw.com
-- in Redwood City, California; Jonathan A. Shapiro --
JShapiro@goodwinlaw.com -- in San Francisco, California; Robert
Tiefenbrun -- RTiefenbrun@goodwinlaw.com -- in Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Cooper.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, Daniel H.R. Laguardia --
daniel.laguardia@shearman.com -- in San Francisco, California; Adam
Hakki -- adam.hakki@shearman.com -- Daniel Lewis --
daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- Joshua Ebersole --
joshua.ebersole@sheaman.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.
APACHE CORP: Court Mulls Moving Consolidated Suit to E.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE COMPANY LLC, Plaintiff
v. APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01166-G (W.D.
Okla.), Judge Charles B. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma orders the parties to each submit a
brief addressing whether the case should be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Plaintiff Consolidated Resource Company LLC brings this lawsuit
alleging that Defendant Apache Corporation has refused to pay
certain statutory interest owed on untimely oil and gas royalties.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's claims were released by
a class action settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Order and J. Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Allen v. Apache Corp.,
CIV-22-63-JAR (E.D. Okla. Nov. 16, 2022) (the "Class Action
Settlement")).
The Plaintiff, in turn, has asserted that this matter lies outside
of the scope of the Class Action Settlement because the Defendant
made the first royalty payment to the Plaintiff after the Class
Action Settlement had been adopted.
By the terms of the Class Action Settlement, the Eastern District
of Oklahoma "reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over
the Litigation, Class Representatives, Settlement Class, and Class
Members for the purposes of enforcing the terms of the Settlement,
including the entry of injunctive or other relief to enforce,
implement, administer, construe, and interpret the Settlement
Agreement."
Judge Goodwin notes that the materials presented to the Court thus
far reflect that venue may properly lie in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma, or at least that such court is a more convenient forum
because resolution of the dispute in favor of the Defendant would
mean that this Court lacks jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Judge Goodwin directs the parties to each submit a
brief addressing whether this case should be transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma within 14
days of the date of this Order. Each side may then respond to the
other's initial brief within 14 days. No reply briefs will be
permitted without leave of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3bcysaus from PacerMonitor.com.
AVANADE INC: Bid for Class Certification Extended to Jan 17, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON LAIRD,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AVANADE, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-04237-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge e
Charles Breyer entered an order continuing class certification
motion and related deadlines as follows:
Current Proposed
Deadlines Continued
Deadlines
Class Certification Discovery May 17, 2024 Nov. 18, 2024
Cutoff:
Motion for Class Certification June 17, 2024 Jan. 17, 2025
Deadline:
Opposition to Motion for July 17, 2024 Feb. 17, 2025
Class Certification Deadline:
Reply ISO Motion for Class July 31, 2024 March 3, 2025
Certification Deadline:
Hearing on Motion for Aug. 23, 2024 April 4, 2025
Class Certification:
Avanade is a global professional services company providing IT
consulting and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=doOzkf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
Jacquelyne P. VanEmmerik, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
1055 W 7th St 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 320-0519
The Defendants are represented by:
Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
Tristan R. Kirk, Esq.
Zarouhi Papazyan, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-1000
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
E-mail: jfife@winston.com
tkirk@winston.com
zpapazyan@winston.com
BAY AREA: Court Approves Stipulation for More Time in Grace Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division approves the
stipulation extending time to oppose motion to dismiss in the
lawsuit titled Christina Grace, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Area Real Estate
Information Services, Inc.; Marin Association of Realtors; North
Bay Association of Realtors; Northern Solano County Association of
Realtors, Inc.; Solano Association of Realtors, Inc.; RE/MAX
Holdings, Inc.; Anywhere Real Estate Inc.; Vanguard Properties,
Inc.; Twin Oaks Real Estate Inc.; Windermere Real Estate Services
Company Inc.; Rapisarda & Fox, Inc.; Realty ONE Group, Inc.; Keller
Williams Realty, Inc.; Compass, Inc.; eXp World Holdings, Inc.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-06352-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Christina Grace,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
Defendant Bay Area Real Estate Information Services Inc. ("BAREIS")
entered into a stipulation extending time to oppose.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on Dec. 8,
2023. She filed a first amended class action complaint on Jan. 12,
2024. BAREIS filed its motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 21, 2024. The Plaintiff's
deadline to oppose BAREIS's motion to dismiss was due on April 18,
2024, with replies due by May 9, 2024.
All Defendants (except BAREIS) subject to the case deadlines set
forth in ECF No. 124 requested a 45-day extension of time to
respond to the FAC set forth in ECF No. 108.
The Plaintiff filed an Administrative Motion to vacate and conform
to the case deadlines on April 5, 2024. BAREIS opposed vacating the
deadlines set in ECF No. 108. The Court denied the Plaintiff's
Administrative Motion to vacate and conform deadlines on April 9,
2024.
Counsel for the Plaintiff and BAREIS have conferred and agreed to
extend the Plaintiff's deadline to oppose BAREIS's motion to
dismiss. The stipulation does not impact or change any other
deadlines in the litigation and would have no effect on the case
schedule.
The Parties stipulate and agree that the Plaintiff's deadline to
oppose BAREIS's motion to dismiss is extended from April 18, 2024,
to April 25, 2024. BAREIS's reply to the Plaintiff's opposition is
unchanged and remains due on May 9, 2024.
The hearing date for BAREIS's motion to dismiss remains unchanged
on May 23, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated April
11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mu8md7bv from
PacerMonitor.com.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP, JILL M. MANNING -- jmanning@pwfirm.com -- in
San Francisco, California 94111; DANIEL L. WARSHAW --
dwarshaw@pwfirm.com -- BOBBY POUYA -- bpouya@pwfirm.com -- NAVEED
ABAIE -- nabaie@pwfirm.com -- ERIC J. MONT -- emont@pwfirm.com --
in Sherman Oaks, California 91403; FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
LLC, DOUGLAS MILLEN -- dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- ROBERT WOZNIAK --
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com -- MATTHEW RUAN -- mruan@fklmlaw.com -- in
Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, Attorneys for Plaintiff Christina
Grace and the Proposed Class.
BARTKO LLP, JASON A. ZWEIG -- jzweig@bartkolaw.com -- in Chicago,
Illinois 60606, Attorneys for Defendant Bay Area Real Estate
Services, Inc.
BOSTON COLLEGE: Summary Judgment Bid in Sellers Suit Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CONNIE SELLERS AND SEAN COOPER, individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the Boston College 401(K) Retirement Plan
I and the Boston college 401(K) Retirement Plan II, Plaintiffs v.
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE, PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10912-WGY (D. Mass.),
Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum of Decision relating to Boston
College's motion for summary judgment.
The Court: (a) denies the motion as it relates to the Recordkeeping
Fees Claim; (b) denies the motion on the Challenged Investment
Claim; and (c) grants the motion on the claims that it violated the
Plans' documents and that it failed prudently to monitor its
fiduciaries.
Boston College offers retirement plans to its fulltime employees.
Among those plans are Boston College 401(k) Retirement Plan I and
Boston College 401(k) Retirement Plan II, which are defined
contribution plans, sponsored and administered by Boston College.
Employees eligible for these Plans can participate in both plans,
can allocate contributions, and may transfer portions between the
Plans.
In 2005, Boston College established the Committee as an ERISA
fiduciary of the Plans. The Committee retained Fiducient, an
independent financial consultant, to assist in its deliberative
process. Fiducient acted as co-fiduciary and investment advisor of
the Plans during the Class Period. Fiducient assisted the Committee
with its 2018 Request for Proposal ("RFP"), a competitive bidding
process used so that the Committee could explore its recordkeeping
options.
Plaintiff Sellers is a former employee of Boston College and has
been a participant of both Plans for the duration of the class
period, which extends from June 10, 2016, to present (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff Cooper is also a former employee of Boston
College and a participant of Plan I.
From 2015 to 2021, Plan I had 3,538 to 3,697 participants and
approximately $447 million to $731 million in assets, and Plan II
had 2,760 to 3,221 participants and assets between $239 million and
$516 million. Plan I offers various investment options, such as
international and domestic equity funds, annuity products (real
estate account and target-date funds), bond funds, and money market
funds. Its investment options include fixed annuities (TIAA
Traditional), as well as variable annuity products, including --
and at issue here -- the CREF Stock Account and TIAA Real Estate
Account (the "challenged investments").
On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs ("Participants"), former or
current participants in Boston College's 401(k) Retirement Plans,
bring a class action against the Trustees of Boston College and the
Plan Investment Committee (together "Boston College"), for failure
to: (1) prudently administer the Retirement Plans (the "Plans")
with respect to the Plans' recordkeeping fees and certain
investments ("challenged investments"); (2) comply with the Plans'
investment policy statement ("IPS"); and (3) monitor fiduciaries
and service providers to the Plans.
The Participants bring suit under Sections 409 and 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The
Complaint alleges one count against all Defendants (Count One:
Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence and Fiduciary Duty to Comply
with Plan Documents) and one count against only the trustees of the
retirement plans for failing to monitor the Committee and the ten
John and Jane Does (Count Two: Failure to Monitor Fiduciaries).
On Aug. 15, 2022, Boston College moved to dismiss the Participants'
Complaint, which the Court denied on Nov. 10, 2022. The Court
certified the class on May 19, 2023.
On Sept. 29, 2023, Boston College moved for summary judgment on all
of the Participants' claims.
Boston College moves for summary judgment arguing that it followed
a robust fiduciary process to monitor its two 401(k) plans
consistent with industry standards, and that the Participants
cannot demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact on breach or
loss. Boston College further argues that, even if the Participants
do show a genuine dispute of material fact on breach or loss,
Boston College shows, as matter of law, that the Plans' fees and
the challenged investments were objectively prudent.
The Court heard oral argument on Boston College's motion for
summary judgment on Nov. 14, 2023, and took this motion under
advisement. After the hearing, the parties submitted supplemental
briefing regarding additional authorities and on the issue of loss
and objective prudence.
The Court finds that Boston College fails to show as matter of law
that the Committee did not breach its fiduciary duties with respect
to the Recordkeeping Fees Claim.
The Court does not assess whether the Committee breached its
fiduciary duties from 2016 until the 2018 RFP because the
Participants fail to set forth any admissible evidence as to loss
before the 2018 RFP. Relative to the time period after the 2018 RFP
(2019 to present), the Court rules that there are genuine disputes
of material fact as to (1) whether it was prudent for the Committee
to not consolidate the Plans to a single recordkeeper; (2) whether
the Committee was aware of the distinction between the unique
participant fee and the per participant fee; and (3) whether some
Committee members had conflicts of interest that warranted recusal
during the 2018 RFP vote.
The Court holds that there is a genuine dispute as to whether
certain Committee members acted imprudently by failing to recuse
themselves from voting during the 2018 RFP, as they failed to
remove themselves from a position where their personal interest may
have come into conflict with the Participants'. A reasonable
factfinder could find that this failure to recuse demonstrated a
process failure. Thus, the Court rules that there is a genuine
dispute of material fact as to breach on the Recordkeeping Fees'
claim.
Judge Young rules that there is a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether the Committee breached its fiduciary duties in
deciding to retain the challenged investments. The Court holds that
there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the
Committee had a prudent process in place to evaluate investments:
it met regularly to review and discuss investments, generally
devoted more time to items placed on "Watch," and made changes to
its investment lineups. This prudent process, however, is not
enough for Boston College to prevail on its motion for summary
judgment.
The Court concludes that factual disputes exist regarding whether
CREF experienced underperformance relative to its benchmarks during
the Class Period. Judge Young explains that there is a genuine
dispute as to whether the CREF Stock Account underperformed
relative to its benchmarks throughout the Class Period. Disputes as
to CREF's performance, however, are not enough to deny Boston
College's motion for summary judgment, as investment losses alone
are not proof that an investor violated his duty of care.
The Participants allege that Boston College's conduct constitutes a
breach of their duty to act in accordance with the documents and
instruments governing the plan, in violation of ERISA Section
404(a)(1)(D), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(D). Specifically, the
Participants argue that the Committee failed to follow the
investments' performance objectives and to document its
conclusions.
The Participants contest Boston College's argument that the
Committee was only required to document items in the minutes if an
investment were changed, arguing that the Committee was obligated
to document decisions even when it considered alternatives but did
not make changes to the investment lineup. The Participants posit
that Investment Policy Statement should not be treated like a "dead
letter."
Boston College argues that there is no genuine issue of disputed
material fact regarding whether it complied with the Plan documents
and that it is entitled to a finding of prudence on Count III as
matter of law.
The Court agrees with Boston College. Judge Young opines that the
plain language of the IPS does not require the Committee to use
certain monitoring criteria and gives the Committee significant
discretion in whether to change investments. With respect to
Participants' claims about documentation, the Court rules that the
IPS only mandates documentation, as per the term "shall," when
investment changes are made.
Judge Young also points out, among other things, that the
Participants do not point to any record evidence showing that a
change was made to the investments and went undocumented. Thus, the
Court grants Boston College's motion for summary judgment on the
alleged failure to comply with plan documents.
Accordingly, the Court denies Boston College's motion for summary
judgment as it relates to the Recordkeeping Fees Claim. The Court
also denies Boston College's motion for summary judgment on the
Challenged Investment Claim. The Court grants Boston College's
summary judgment motion on the claims that it violated the Plans'
documents and that it failed prudently to monitor its fiduciaries.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum of Decision dated April
11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mz2jnay2 from
PacerMonitor.com.
CARGILL MEAT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Marin Continued to Nov. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MARIN, SAMANTHA
LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-00578-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to continue the
discovery deadline along with the Plaintiffs' deadline to file
their motion for class certification and to modify the briefing
schedule as follows:
Oct. 15, 2024 – Class Certification Discovery Cut-Off;
Nov. 18, 2024 – Plaintiffs' deadline to file Motion for Class
Certification;
Dec. 23, 2024 – Defendant's deadline to file its Opposition;
Jan. 21, 2025 – Plaintiff's deadline to file their Reply; and
March 7, 2025 – Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Defendant has recently attained new counsel Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Steward P.C., and the case files are still in the
process of being transferred from the Defendant's previous law
firm, Cozen O'Connor to Ogletree Deakins.
The requested continuance will allow the Parties' to explore
continued settlement negotiations in an effort to find a resolution
to this action, including engaging in a second mediation day, which
is currently scheduled for June 5, 2024 with a well-respected wage
and hour class action mediator Paul Grossman.
Cargill operates as a processor and distributor of fresh beef,
pork, turkey, and cooked and marinated meats.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uS8rz2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
Timothy L. Reed, Esq.
Ethan Lai, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
E-mail: richard.rahm@ogletree.com
timothy.reed@ogletree.com
ethan.lai@ogletree.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Baird Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, et al., v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS
(C.D. Cal.), the Court dismisses the action without prejudice and
entered an order that:
1. All deadlines governing this action are vacated. Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification is denied without prejudice as
moot.
2. The court retains jurisdiction to vacate this Order and to
reopen the
action within 60 days from the date of this Order, provided
any
request by a party to do so shall make a showing of good
cause
as to why the settlement has not been completed within the
60-
day period, what further settlement processes are necessary,
and
when the party making such a request reasonably expects the
process to be concluded.
3. The Order does not preclude the filing of a stipulation of
dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41,
which
does not require approval of the court.
On April 24, 2024, the Plaintiff Baird filed a Notice of
Settlement, stating the parties had agreed to settle the action and
requesting additional time to execute a confidential settlement
agreement and file a stipulation to dismiss Plaintiff's individual
claims with prejudice and dismiss the claims of putative class
members without prejudice.
Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4nzxKJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHAUTAUQUA, NY: GCFCU Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREATER CHAUTAUQUA FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, et al., v. SHERIFF JAMES B. QUATTRONE, in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Chautauqua County, New York, et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02753-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will
move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
for an order certifying the Proposed Class.
Pursuant to this Court's order on April 11, 2024, further briefing
will be submitted in accordance with Local Rule 6.1(b).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LpqOLt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq.
Liz Clark Rinehart, Esq.
Kan M. Nawaday, Esq.
Emily Seiderman West, Esq.
Sean M. McCarthy, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 244-7400
Facsimile: (410) 244-7742
E-mail: MYMirviss@Venable.com
LCRinehart@venable.com
KMNawaday@Venable.com
EAWest@Venable.com
SMcCarthy@Venable.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Settlement in Patora Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeannie Patora,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-01118-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vincent Briccetti entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs motion for final approval of class action settlement.
The Defendant specializes in the production, distribution, and
provision of household, health care, personal care, and veterinary
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KVj3Y3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLLETTE PETERS: Flores Loses Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Flores, v.
Collette Peters, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01330-DJH-CDB D (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane Humetewa entered an order that:
(1) Plaintiff's application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is
granted.
(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate
government agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee
and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $14.52.
(3) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Motion for
Appointment of Class Counsel are denied.
(4) Counts One and Two are dismissed without prejudice.
(5) If Plaintiff attempts to amend to address the shortcomings
identified in this Order, the amended complaint must be
retyped
or rewritten in its entirety (including those claims and
Defendants that were not dismissed), and Plaintiff must
comply
with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Rule
15.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
(6) Defendants Peters, Hudson, Rice, and Davis must answer Count
Three.
(7) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet
including the First Amended Complaint, this Order, and both
summons and request for waiver forms for Defendants Peters,
Hudson, Rice, and Davis.
On June 16, 2023, Jason Todd Mogler and 70 other prisoners, all of
whom were at that time confined in the Federal Correctional
Institution in Phoenix, Arizona (FCIPhoenix), filed a civil rights
Complaint, initiating case CV-23-01107-PHX-DJH (CDB).
The Plaintiff's claims arise from a common core of allegations, as
follows:
Between February 8 and 24, 2023, the "John/Jane Doe(s)"
destroyed
the "Native American Ceremonial Drums at FCI Phoenix," but the
Defendants "failed to properly investigate and remedy the
damage."
The Plaintiff further alleges that since January 2020, he has not
"had
access to a properly structured and equipped 'sweat lodge,'" and
has been "denied a Traditional Spiritual Leader."
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have failed to "abide by
and enforce" the requirements of BOP Program Statements (PS)
5360.09, 7300.09, and 3420.11; that Defendant Peters "is ultimately
responsible for directing the other named Defendants to behave in a
lawful and ethical manner."
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts a First Amendment free exercise
claim (Count One), a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim
(Count Two), and a claim pursuant to the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA) (Count Three).
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GZHuTi at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Filing in RPRF Suit Due May 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RISING PHOENIX ROYALTY
FUND III, LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. CONTANGO RESOURCES, LLC, AND CONTANGO RESOURCES, INC.
Case No. 2:23-cv-00238-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Kelly Rankin
entered a discovery and class certification briefing schedule
order as follows:
Event Deadline
Motions for leave to amend or add July 26, 2024
additional parties
Documents previously produced by Nov. 27, 2024
parties shall be deemed authenticated
under Fed. R. Evid. 901 except as to
those objected to by this date
Fact Discovery for Class Certification Dec. 6, 2024
Discovery Deadline (not including
expert discovery)
Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures Jan. 6, 2025
for Class Certification, including
Expert Report(s) (not filed of record)
Defendant's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures March 18, 2025
for Class Certification, including
Expert Report(s) (not filed of record)
Plaintiff's Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert April 18, 2025
Disclosures for Class Certification,
including Rebuttal Expert Report(s)
(not filed of record)
Private Mediation Deadline March 28, 2025
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion May 21, 2025
Defendant's Class Certification Response June 25, 2025
Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply July 25, 2025
In Person Class Certification Hearing Aug. 13, 2025
Contango is an independent oil and natural gas company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MRbl6S at no extra
charge.[CC]
CORECIVIC INC: Must Leave to Restrict Confidential Exhibits Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lopez v. CoreCivic, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02358 (D. Colo., Filed Sept. 13, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswel entered an order granting
the Defendants' unopposed motion for leave to restrict access to
confidential exhibits to response to plaintiff's motion for class
certification and memorandum in support.
The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain ECFs [44-1], [44-2],
[44-3], [44-4], [44-5], and [44-6], the exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3,
A-4, A-5, and B to42 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification Restriction Level 1.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.
CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and
detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.[CC]
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Water Island Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands Inc. disclosed in its form 10-Q Report
for quarterly period ending March 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Water Island Merger
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
In June 2023, a purported former stockholder filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware alleging that the Company's disclosures issued in
connection with the Merger were materially misleading in violation
of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
The complaint is captioned Water Island Merger Arbitrage
Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. v. Cornerstone Building
Brands et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00701 (D. Del.).
The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and officers
issued misleading disclosures, which caused stockholders to approve
the Merger at an unfair price.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs.
On December 8, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint, and, in the alternative, to stay the litigation.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. is a Delaware holding company
that owns the largest exterior building products manufacturer by
sales in North America and serves residential and commercial
customers across new construction and the repair and remodel end
markets. It is organized in three reportable segments: Aperture
Solutions, Surface Solutions and Shelter Solutions.
CROWN ROOFING: Plaintiff's Settlement Proposal Due June 1
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISSA HOSEISEL,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CROWN
ROOFING & SOLAR LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02563-HLT-GEB (D. Kan.), the
Hon. Judge Gwynne E. Birzer entered a scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline/Setting
Plaintiff's settlement proposal: June 1, 2024
Defendant's settlement counter-proposal: June 15, 2024
Jointly filed mediation notice, or April 30, 2024
confidential settlement reports to
magistrate judge:
Motions to amend: June 11, 2024
Mediation completed: July 30, 2024
ADR report filed by Defendant: 14 days after
mediation
Experts disclosed by Plaintiff: Dec. 10, 2024
Experts disclosed by Defendant: Feb. 14, 2024
All discovery completed: Feb. 21, 2025
Class certification briefing
Motion: March 6, 2025
Response: March 27, 2025
Reply: April 10, 20250
On April 23, 2024, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, Gwynne E.
Birzer, conducted a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16.
This is a putative class action alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by Defendant's conduct
of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers who
registered their phone numbers on the Do Not Call registry ("DNC").
After consultation with the parties, the court enters this
scheduling order, summarized in the following table:
Crown is a full-service roofing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkNbjU at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Stephenson Partly Wins Bid to Enforce Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Jamal Stephenson, et al., On behalf of
herself and All others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Family
Solutions of Ohio, Inc., et al., Defendants, Lead Case No.
1:18-cv-02017-PAB (N.D. Ohio), Judge Pamela A. Barker of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Provisions of the
Parties' Settlement Agreement.
Defendants Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc., Prostar Management,
Inc., John Hopkins, and Dawn Smith filed a Brief in Opposition on
March 26, 2024, as well as a Supplemental Filing containing
Exhibits to that Brief in Opposition on March 27, 2024. The
Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief on April 2, 2024.
The class and collective action was brought on behalf of Qualified
Mental Health Specialists ("QMHS") employed by Defendant Family
Solutions of Ohio. The Complaint was filed on Sept. 4, 2018, and an
Amended Complaint was filed on May 5, 2020. Plaintiffs Jamal
Stephenson and Melanie Baron allege that they and other QMHSs were
not paid for travel time, time spent entering documentation, and
time spent for no-show appointments, in violation of federal and
state wage-and-hour laws and state common law. The Defendants
denied the Plaintiffs' allegations.
On Sept. 16, 2019, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of QMHS's who worked during the
preceding three years. Notice was issued to potential opt- ins and
29 persons ultimately joined the case by submitting consent forms.
Subsequently, on April 5, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Certification of a state-law Class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23. The Court approved Notice to putative Class Members on May 5,
2021. After Notice was issued and the period to request exclusion
had expired, the Rule 23 Class consisted of a total of 177 Class
Members.
After extensive discovery and motion practice, the parties
ultimately reached an agreement to settle the instant action. On
March 16, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class and Class Action Settlement. The parties later
filed a Supplement thereto, in which they addressed certain issues
raised by the Court and attached a signed copy of the parties'
"Agreement of Settlement and Release." The Court preliminarily
approved the parties' Settlement Agreement on March 28, 2023.
Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Defendants
were to provide a Roster to counsel for the Plaintiffs with the
most up to date mailing addresses in the Defendants' records by
April 17, 2023. The term "Roster" is defined in the Settlement
Agreement as a document prepared and agreed upon by the parties
listing the Class Members and Opt-Ins. The names, addresses, and
dates of employment of Class Members and Opt-Ins were based on the
Defendants' records.
The Plaintiffs were then ordered to send Notice of Settlement to
Class Members listed in the Roster by no later than April 27, 2023.
It is undisputed that the Defendants provided the Roster to the
Plaintiffs' Counsel and, further, that the Plaintiffs' Counsel used
the information contained in that Roster to send the Notices to
Class Members. Several months later, the parties filed a Joint
Motion for Final Approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement.
The Agreement contains several provisions relating to the
distribution of settlement payments to Class Members and Opt-Ins.
Specifically, Paragraph 27 of the Agreement provides that the
Defendants will pay the Total Settlement Amount of $535,000 in two
equal installments of $178,333.33, and a third installment of
$178,333.34, on or before the Installment Dates. The first
Installment Date will be 30 days after the Effective Date or Nov.
1, 2023, whichever is later. The second and third Installment Dates
will be June 1, 2024, and Jan. 2, 2025, respectively. The
Defendants are to make individual payments to Class Members and
Opt-Ins.
Lastly, the Settlement Agreements contains a Cooperation Clause
that provides that the Parties agree to cooperate and take all
steps necessary to accomplish and implement the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
The Court conducted an in-person Final Approval Hearing on July 10,
2023, and issued a Final Approval Order later that same day. In the
Final Approval Order, the Court found (among other things) that the
Total Settlement Amount and the proposed distributions to the Named
Plaintiffs, Opt-Ins, and Settlement Class Members are fair and
reasonable. In addition, the Court approved the distributions and
ordered that they be made in the manner, and subject to the terms
and conditions, set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court
also retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement
agreement and resolve any and all disputes thereunder.
Pursuant to Paragraphs 27 and 32(a) of the Settlement Agreement,
the Defendants were required to distribute the first installment
checks to the Named Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Opt-Ins by no
later than Nov. 21, 2023. On Nov. 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs' Counsel
emailed the Defendants' Counsel that a lot of class members said
that they have not received checks. The Plaintiffs' Counsel asked
assistance in two ways: (1) confirmation that checks went out to
the whole class; and (2) have the Defendants void, reissue checks,
and send to the Plaintiffs' Counsel's office for 10 specific Class
Members identified in the Plaintiffs' email. The Defendants'
Counsel responded that same day, stating that they will check with
their client.
One week later, on Nov. 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs' Counsel emailed
the Defendants' Counsel asking for any update. On Dec. 1, 2023, the
Plaintiffs' Counsel emailed the Defendants' Counsel to identify
another Class Member, who had reported not receiving her check. The
Defendants' Counsel did not respond.
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs' Counsel emailed the Defendants'
Counsel that if they do not have information by the end of the
week, they are going to have to get the Court involved. Later that
day, the Defendants' Counsel responded as follows: "The client
confirmed that the checks have gone out to the entire roster and
that some of the individuals [identified in Plaintiff' Counsel's
previous emails] have already cashed their checks...."
On Dec. 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs' Counsel sent an email to the
Defendants' Counsel again identifying certain Class Members, who
had not received their checks and requesting that the Defendants
void and reissue checks to those specific Class Members. The
Defendants' Counsel did not respond, and on Dec. 20, 2023, the
Plaintiffs' Counsel emailed the Defendants' Counsel with the names
of nine Class Members, who had not received their checks.
On Dec. 23, 2023, the Defendants' Counsel responded that all checks
have been sent out according to the final list of addresses. The
Plaintiffs' Counsel indicated a willingness to wait until Jan. 5,
2024, before filing a motion to enforce. On Jan. 5, 2024, the
Defendants' Counsel emailed the Plaintiffs' Counsel that they had
been "bogged down" but will be calling the client to get the facts
on the checks.
On Jan. 9, 2024, the Defendants' Counsel indicated that "the client
is working to get this information." The Plaintiffs' Counsel
expressed considerable frustration with the delay and threatened,
again, to file a motion to enforce.
Judge Barker notes that it does not appear that the Defendants
provided any further information to the Plaintiffs' Counsel until
Feb. 1, 2024. On that date, the Defendants provided an audit report
to the Plaintiffs' Counsel pursuant to Paragraph 34 of the
Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "February 1, 2024 Audit Report")
that listed the dates of all checks issued to the Plaintiffs,
Opt-Ins, and Class Members and indicated whether the checks were
cashed or uncashed.
On Feb. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs' Counsel emailed the Defendants'
Counsel (in relevant part) as follows: "Defendants' February 1,
2024 report raises troubling questions. Out of 168 class members
who were to be paid in the First Installment, Defendants 'sent'
checks to only 43 class members. Checks are still 'uncashed' for
154 class members."
On Feb. 15, 2024, the Defendants' Counsel responded via email that
they had "confirmed with the client that checks have been sent to
the entire class." Judge Barker notes that at no point in time did
the Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel speak to each
other on the telephone or meet (either in person or via Zoom) to
attempt to resolve their dispute.
On March 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to
Enforce. On March 25, 2024, the Defendants' Counsel sent an email
to the Plaintiffs' Counsel providing the addresses to which the
first installment checks had been mailed with regard to the eleven
specific Class Members identified in the Plaintiffs' Feb. 11, 2024
email.
The Defendants' Counsel aksi stated that "if you would like Family
Solutions to reissue the above checks to these 11 individuals,
please provide us with verified addresses so that new checks can be
sent." The Defendants' Counsel then asked the Plaintiffs' Counsel
if they would be willing to withdraw their Motion to Enforce.
The Plaintiffs' Counsel declined to withdraw the Motion unless
certain conditions are met, including the provision of a list of
the addresses to which all checks were sent. The Defendants
declined to agree to these conditions and filed their Brief in
Opposition on March 26, 2024, and a Notice of Filing of Exhibits to
the Defendants' Opposition on March 27, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed
a Reply Brief on April 2, 2024.
In their Motion, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants violated
Paragraphs 32(d) and 34 of the Settlement Agreement when they
failed to either respond to the Plaintiffs' Counsel's repeated
requests for further information or comply with the Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request that the Defendants reissue individual settlement
payment checks to the eleven (11) Class Members identified in their
various emails.
The Court finds that neither party to this action has acted with
the level of cooperation that is contemplated (and, indeed,
required) by the Settlement Agreement.
Among other things, Judge Barker points out that for weeks, the
Defendants' Counsel failed to meaningfully respond to the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's inquiries, either ignoring the Plaintiffs'
Counsel's emails entirely or stating only that they would "check
with the client." The Defendants' Counsel provided information only
when the Plaintiffs' Counsel threatened to involve the Court and,
even then, the information provided was limited, vague, and
unsubstantiated. Again and again, the Defendants' Counsel promised
to "follow up" with their clients.
Judge Barker opines that it is no wonder that the Plaintiffs are
frustrated and angry. The Defendants provide no explanation for
their failure to timely respond to the Plaintiffs' Counsel's
reasonable inquiries regarding the first installment payments to
Individual Class Members. Moreover, while the Defendants state
generally that they sent checks "to the addresses listed on the
roster," they do not acknowledge or directly address the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's statement that checks were only mailed to 43
of 168 Class Members and that 154 checks remain uncashed.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the Defendants
failed to sufficiently cooperate with the Plaintiffs' Counsel
and/or timely respond to the Plaintiff's Counsel's requests for
reasonably necessary information and documents related to the first
installment payments, in contravention of Paragraphs 27 and 32(d)
of the Settlement Agreement. The Court will, therefore, require the
Defendants to provide the following information to the Plaintiffs'
Counsel within seven (7) days of the date of this Order: (1) the
names and addresses of the Class Members to whom the first
installment checks were mailed; and (2) the date on which each such
check was mailed (or remailed, if applicable).
The Court further finds that the Plaintiffs' Counsel properly asked
the Defendants to provide "any available contact information" for
the 154 Class Members listed in the Feb. 1, 2024 Audit Report as
having uncashed checks. Upon review, the Court finds that, as part
of their reasonable efforts to obtain alternative addresses, the
Plaintiffs' Counsel are permitted under the Settlement Agreement to
ask the Defendants to provide "any available contact information"
in the Defendants' current possession for those Class Members
listed in the Feb. 1, 2024 Audit Report as having uncashed checks,
including updated mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone
numbers (if any).
In so finding, the Court rejects the Defendants' argument that
Paragraph 34 first requires the Plaintiffs' Counsel to use
reasonable efforts to obtain alternative addresses, and only then
are the Defendants required to provide "any available contact
information" upon request. There is no language in Paragraph 34
that requires such a restrictive reading. Nor does the Court agree
with the Defendants' narrow interpretation of the term "any
available contact information" to mean only mailing addresses.
Lastly, the Court addresses the Plaintiffs' request that the Court
order the Defendants to reissue checks to all class members and
addresses provided by the Plaintiffs' counsel including, if a class
member requests it, to the Plaintiffs' counsel's address so that
they may retrieve the check.
The Court finds that it was not appropriate (or in the spirit of
cooperation) for the Plaintiff's Counsel to demand that reissued
checks be sent to their office address, nor was it appropriate (or
in the spirit of cooperation) for the Plaintiff's Counsel to
condition any further cooperation or exchange of information on the
Defendants' agreement to do so.
The Court, therefore, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to the extent
it asks the Court to order the Defendants to send reissued checks
to the Plaintiff's Counsel's office address. The Court does,
however, note as follows. Given the problems associated with the
distribution of the first installment checks, the Court understands
the Plaintiff's Counsel's concerns, as well as their desire to find
a solution that ensures that Class Members promptly receive their
installment checks.
The Court also suspects that sending installment checks to the
Plaintiff's Counsel's address (for those Class Members who request
it) could, indeed, simplify matters and prevent future disputes
about whether, when, and to whom installment checks were mailed.
That being said, it is not unreasonable for the Defendants to
require verification (via Declaration or otherwise) from Class
Members that request that reissued checks be sent to the
Plaintiff's Counsel's office address.
As none of this is addressed in the Settlement Agreement, the Court
will not order the Defendants to send reissued checks to the
Plaintiff's Counsel's address for those Class Members that request
it via sworn Declaration.
For all the reasons set forth, Judge Barker rules that the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Provisions of Settlement Agreement is
granted in part and denied in part, as follows:
A. By no later than seven (7) days of the date of this Order,
the Defendants are ordered to provide the following to the
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
(1) the names and addresses of the Class Members to whom
the first installment checks were mailed, as well as
the date on which each such check was mailed (or
remailed, if applicable); and
(2) "any available contact information" in Defendants'
possession for the 154 Class Members listed in the
Feb. 1, 2024 Audit Report as having uncashed checks,
including updated mailing addresses, email addresses,
and phone numbers (if any);
B. By no later than seven (7) days from the Defendants'
provision of the above information to the Plaintiffs'
Counsel, the Plaintiffs are ordered to provide to the
Defendants any updated mailing addresses for Class Members
that the Plaintiffs have in their possession (if any);
C. If they have not already done so, the Defendants are
ordered to reissue first installment checks to the eleven
(11) Class Members listed in the Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Feb. 11, 2024 email. These checks should be sent to the
Class Members' updated addresses that were apparently
provided by the Plaintiffs' Counsel on March 26, 2024;
D. To the extent the Plaintiffs' Motion requests that reissued
checks for Individual Class Members be mailed to the
Plaintiff's Counsel's office address, the Plaintiff's
Motion is denied. The parties are strongly encouraged,
however, to meet and confer within the next thirty (30)
days to discuss whether they can agree on a process going
forward whereby reissued checks can be mailed to the
Plaintiff's Counsel's office address under certain
agreed-upon circumstances; and
E. Prior to the filing of any future Motion to Enforce in this
action, the Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel
are required to meet and confer, in good faith, to attempt
to resolve the dispute. The meet and confer must be
conducted in person, by video conference, or by telephone
conference. Any Motion to Enforce must be accompanied by a
sworn Declaration of Counsel, confirming that Counsel met
and conferred as required by this Order and detailing the
time, place, and specific outcome of that meet and confer.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s9m9bcp from PacerMonitor.com.
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Stayed in Williams Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Federal
Express Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01056 (N.D. Ga., Filed March
11, 2024), the Hon. Judge J.P. Boulee entered an order granting
consent motion regarding deadline for plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff's deadline to file the motion is stayed until after
Defendant has answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint and
the Court issues a scheduling order.
The suit alleges violation of the U.S. Services
Employment/Reemployment Act of 1994.
FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
focused on transportation, e-commerce and business services.[CC]
GEICO: MSPA Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, et
al., v. Government Employees Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00964-TDC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Theodore Chuang entered
an order granting the motions to file under seal the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and incorporated memorandum of law,
and Defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification.
The parties shall file redacted versions of their respective briefs
within 14 days of the date of this order.
Government Employees is an American auto insurance company
headquartered in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6TAjF4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GREGORY W. BECKER: As Agreed, Court Stays Rossi & Stevenson Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California signed a Stipulation and Order
staying Stevenson and Rossi I Actions filed by the parties in the
lawsuits captioned KIM STEVENSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY W.
BECKER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02277-HSG (N.D. Cal.);
STEPHEN ROSSI, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY W. BECKER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02335-HSG (N.D. Cal.); and STEPHEN
ROSSI, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANTHONY DECHELLIS, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 24-cv-01674-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The Stipulation and Order relates to the certification of order
denying motions for remand for appeal and corresponding stay of
proceedings.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and the Court's March 28, 2024
Order Denying Motions to Remand, Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson, Howard
Tarlow, and Stephen Rossi and Defendants Gregory W. Becker, Daniel
J. Beck, Eric A. Benhamou, John S. Clendening, Richard D. Daniels,
Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. Friedman, Karen Hon, Jeffrey
N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D.
Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, KPMG LLP, Benhamou
Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, Scale Venture Partners,
Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
entered into the Stipulation.
On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson and Howard Tarlow filed
a putative securities class action against certain Defendants in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Stevenson, et al. v. Becker, et al., No. 23CV413949 (the "Stevenson
Action").
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative
securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara, alleging substantially similar claims against the
same Defendants named in the Stevenson Action, and also naming as
Defendants Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale
Venture Partners, captioned Rossi v. Becker, et al., No. 23CV414120
(the "Rossi I Action").
On Feb. 15, 2024, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative
securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara, alleging substantially similar claims against
Defendants Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, captioned Rossi v. DeChellis, et al., No.
24CV431200 (the "Rossi II Action") (together with the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, the "State Actions").
Certain Defendants removed the State Actions to the District Court
for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs filed
motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions back to state
court (the "Remand Motions"), and the Parties to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions briefed and argued those motions to remand before
Judge Gilliam.
On March 27, 2024, pursuant to a stipulation of all parties, the
Plaintiffs submitted an administrative motion to relate the Rossi
II Action to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions and, as of the date
of this filing, the Court has not yet ruled on relatedness.
On March 28, 2024, the Court issued the March 28 Order, which
denied the Plaintiffs' motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I
Actions, and further held that the interests of clarity would be
best served by definitive guidance from the Ninth Circuit as to the
recurring legal question of whether Section 22(a) of the 1933
Securities Act ("1933 Act") bars removal of even actions "related
to" a bankruptcy action pursuant to Section 1452(a), and thus,
directed the Parties to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions to submit
a stipulation and proposed order certifying an interlocutory appeal
of the March 28 Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) (the "Interlocutory
Appeal").
The Parties agree that staying the proceedings in district court in
Stevenson and Rossi I pending the resolution of the forthcoming
Interlocutory Appeal will best serve the interests of judicial
economy, conservation of time and resources, and orderly management
of Stevenson and Rossi I.
Plaintiff Rossi believes remand of the Rossi II Action to state
court is appropriate on the same bases set forth in the Remand
Motions in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions, and the Defendants in
the Rossi II Action oppose remand.
Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II Action agree
that the March 28 Order will be determinative of whether the Rossi
II Action is remanded to state court unless the March 28 Order is
reversed, vacated, or modified by the Interlocutory Appeal, in
which case the determination of the remand issue by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Interlocutory Appeal will
be determinative of whether the Rossi II Action is remanded to
state court.
Upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II
Action anticipate submitting a stipulation, subject to Court
approval, staying the proceedings in district court in the Rossi II
Action pending determination of the Interlocutory Appeal.
The Parties have met and conferred as directed by the Court in the
March 28 Order and submit this stipulation and proposed order
accordingly.
Now therefore, the Parties stipulate and agree that the proceedings
in district court in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions will be
stayed pending the resolution of the forthcoming Interlocutory
Appeal, and no Defendant in the Stevenson or Rossi I Actions will
have any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaints in the Stevenson or Rossi I Actions prior to resolution
of the forthcoming Interlocutory Appeal and a schedule is,
thereafter, set for the Defendants to respond.
Upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II
Action will submit a stipulation, subject to Court approval,
staying the proceedings in district court in the Rossi II Action
pending determination of the Interlocutory Appeal.
In addition to being binding on all parties to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, the March 28 Order will be binding on the parties
to the Rossi II Action with respect to, and determinative of, the
Plaintiff's expected motion to remand the Rossi II Action to state
court, unless the March 28 Order is reversed, vacated, or modified
by the Interlocutory Appeal, in which case the determination of the
remand issue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
the Interlocutory Appeal will be determinative of whether the two
actions, as well as the Rossi II Action, are remanded to the state
court.
The Parties agree that the Stipulation is entered into without
prejudice to any Party seeking any interim relief. Nothing in the
Stipulation will be construed as a waiver of any of the Defendants'
rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any
defenses, except as to sufficiency of service of process, that the
Defendants would otherwise have, including jurisdictional
defenses.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated April
11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/7e4r6tne from
PacerMonitor.com.
GIRARD SHARP LLP, Daniel C. Girard -- dgirard@girardsharp.com --
Adam E. Polk -- apolk@girardsharp.com -- Jordan Elias --
jelias@girardsharp.com -- Sean P. Greene -- sgreene@girardsharp.com
-- in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kim
Stevenson and Howard Tarlow.
HEDIN HALL LLP, David W. Hall -- dhall@hedinhall.com -- Armen
Zohrabian -- azohrabian@hedinhall.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephen Rossi.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, MICHAEL G. BONGIORNO --
michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- in New York City; TIMOTHY J.
PERLA -- timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- ERIKA M. SCHUTZMAN --
erika.schutzman@wilmerhale.com -- in Boston, Massachusetts; MICHAEL
A. MUGMON -- michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Counsel for Defendants Eric A. Benhamou, Richard D.
Daniels, Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. Friedman, Jeffrey
N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D.
Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, Benhamou Global
Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale Venture Partners.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Christopher W. Johnstone
-- chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com -- in Palo Alto, California;
Peter G. Neiman -- peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com -- Jessica N.
Djilani -- jessica.djilani@wilmerhale.com -- in New York City,
Attorneys for Defendant Karen Hon.
ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP, James N. Kramer --
jkramer@orrick.com -- Alexander K. Talarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- in San Francisco, California, Attorneys
for Defendant Gregory W. Becker.
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, Jennifer S. Windom --
jwindom@kramerlevin.com -- in Washington, D.C.; Kristopher Kastens
-- kkastens@kramerlevin.com -- in Redwood Shores, California; Barry
H. Berke -- bberke@kramerlevin.com -- Darren A. Laverne --
dlaverne@kramerlevin.com -- Daniel M. Ketani --
dketani@kramerlevin.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendant Daniel J. Beck.
DLA PIPER LLP (US), Richard H. Zelichov --
richard.zelichov@us.dlapiper.com -- in Los Angeles, California;
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP, Bruce G. Vanyo -- bruce@katten.com --
Paul S. Yong -- paul.yong@katten.com -- in Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Defendant John S. Clendening.
KING & SPALDING LLP, Lisa R. Bugni -- lbugni@kslaw.com -- in San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant KPMG LLP.
BRAUN HAGEY & BORDEN LLP, Ellen Leonida -- leonida@braunhagey.com
-- in San Francisco, California; FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEIILER ADELMAN &
ROBBINS LLP, Jason C. Rubinstein -- jrubinstein@fklaw.com -- in New
York City, Attorneys for Defendant Anthony DeChellis.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Nicole L. Chessari -- NChessari@goodwinlaw.com
-- in Redwood City, California; Jonathan A. Shapiro --
JShapiro@goodwinlaw.com -- in San Francisco, California; Robert
Tiefenbrun -- RTiefenbrun@goodwinlaw.com -- in Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Cooper.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, Daniel H.R. Laguardia --
daniel.laguardia@shearman.com -- in San Francisco, California; Adam
Hakki -- adam.hakki@shearman.com -- Daniel Lewis --
daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- Joshua Ebersole --
joshua.ebersole@sheaman.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.
GREGORY W. BECKER: Parties Agree to Stay Stevenson & Rossi I Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California signed a Stipulation and Order
staying Stevenson and Rossi I Actions filed by the parties in the
lawsuits styled KIM STEVENSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY W.
BECKER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02277-HSG (N.D. Cal.);
STEPHEN ROSSI, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY W. BECKER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02335-HSG (N.D. Cal.); and STEPHEN
ROSSI, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANTHONY DECHELLIS, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 24-cv-01674-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The Stipulation and Order relates to the certification of order
denying motions for remand for appeal and corresponding stay of
proceedings.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and the Court's March 28, 2024
Order Denying Motions to Remand, Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson, Howard
Tarlow, and Stephen Rossi and Defendants Gregory W. Becker, Daniel
J. Beck, Eric A. Benhamou, John S. Clendening, Richard D. Daniels,
Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. Friedman, Karen Hon, Jeffrey
N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D.
Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, KPMG LLP, Benhamou
Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, Scale Venture Partners,
Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
entered into the Stipulation.
On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson and Howard Tarlow filed
a putative securities class action against certain Defendants in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Stevenson, et al. v. Becker, et al., No. 23CV413949 (the "Stevenson
Action").
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative
securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara, alleging substantially similar claims against the
same Defendants named in the Stevenson Action, and also naming as
Defendants Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale
Venture Partners, captioned Rossi v. Becker, et al., No. 23CV414120
(the "Rossi I Action").
On Feb. 15, 2024, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative
securities class action in the Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara, alleging substantially similar claims against
Defendants Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, captioned Rossi v. DeChellis, et al., No.
24CV431200 (the "Rossi II Action") (together with the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, the "State Actions").
Certain Defendants removed the State Actions to the District Court
for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs filed
motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions back to state
court (the "Remand Motions"), and the Parties to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions briefed and argued those motions to remand before
Judge Gilliam.
On March 27, 2024, pursuant to a stipulation of all parties, the
Plaintiffs submitted an administrative motion to relate the Rossi
II Action to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions and, as of the date
of this filing, the Court has not yet ruled on relatedness.
On March 28, 2024, the Court issued the March 28 Order, which
denied the Plaintiffs' motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I
Actions, and further held that the interests of clarity would be
best served by definitive guidance from the Ninth Circuit as to the
recurring legal question of whether Section 22(a) of the 1933
Securities Act ("1933 Act") bars removal of even actions "related
to" a bankruptcy action pursuant to Section 1452(a), and thus,
directed the Parties to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions to submit
a stipulation and proposed order certifying an interlocutory appeal
of the March 28 Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) (the "Interlocutory
Appeal").
The Parties agree that staying the proceedings in district court in
Stevenson and Rossi I pending the resolution of the forthcoming
Interlocutory Appeal will best serve the interests of judicial
economy, conservation of time and resources, and orderly management
of Stevenson and Rossi I.
Plaintiff Rossi believes remand of the Rossi II Action to state
court is appropriate on the same bases set forth in the Remand
Motions in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions, and the Defendants in
the Rossi II Action oppose remand.
Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II Action agree
that the March 28 Order will be determinative of whether the Rossi
II Action is remanded to state court unless the March 28 Order is
reversed, vacated, or modified by the Interlocutory Appeal, in
which case the determination of the remand issue by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Interlocutory Appeal will
be determinative of whether the Rossi II Action is remanded to
state court.
Upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II
Action anticipate submitting a stipulation, subject to Court
approval, staying the proceedings in district court in the Rossi II
Action pending determination of the Interlocutory Appeal.
The Parties have met and conferred as directed by the Court in the
March 28 Order and submit this stipulation and proposed order
accordingly.
Now therefore, the Parties stipulate and agree that the proceedings
in district court in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions will be
stayed pending the resolution of the forthcoming Interlocutory
Appeal, and no Defendant in the Stevenson or Rossi I Actions will
have any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaints in the Stevenson or Rossi I Actions prior to resolution
of the forthcoming Interlocutory Appeal and a schedule is,
thereafter, set for the Defendants to respond.
Upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, Plaintiff Rossi and the Defendants in the Rossi II
Action will submit a stipulation, subject to Court approval,
staying the proceedings in district court in the Rossi II Action
pending determination of the Interlocutory Appeal.
In addition to being binding on all parties to the Stevenson and
Rossi I Actions, the March 28 Order will be binding on the parties
to the Rossi II Action with respect to, and determinative of, the
Plaintiff's expected motion to remand the Rossi II Action to state
court, unless the March 28 Order is reversed, vacated, or modified
by the Interlocutory Appeal, in which case the determination of the
remand issue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
the Interlocutory Appeal will be determinative of whether the two
actions, as well as the Rossi II Action, are remanded to the state
court.
The Parties agree that the Stipulation is entered into without
prejudice to any Party seeking any interim relief. Nothing in the
Stipulation will be construed as a waiver of any of the Defendants'
rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any
defenses, except as to sufficiency of service of process, that the
Defendants would otherwise have, including jurisdictional
defenses.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated April
11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s5btha5 from
PacerMonitor.com.
GIRARD SHARP LLP, Daniel C. Girard -- dgirard@girardsharp.com --
Adam E. Polk -- apolk@girardsharp.com -- Jordan Elias --
jelias@girardsharp.com -- Sean P. Greene -- sgreene@girardsharp.com
-- in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kim
Stevenson and Howard Tarlow.
HEDIN HALL LLP, David W. Hall -- dhall@hedinhall.com -- Armen
Zohrabian -- azohrabian@hedinhall.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephen Rossi.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, MICHAEL G. BONGIORNO --
michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- in New York City; TIMOTHY J.
PERLA -- timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- ERIKA M. SCHUTZMAN --
erika.schutzman@wilmerhale.com -- in Boston, Massachusetts; MICHAEL
A. MUGMON -- michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Counsel for Defendants Eric A. Benhamou, Richard D.
Daniels, Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. Friedman, Jeffrey
N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D.
Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, Benhamou Global
Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale Venture Partners.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Christopher W. Johnstone
-- chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com -- in Palo Alto, California;
Peter G. Neiman -- peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com -- Jessica N.
Djilani -- jessica.djilani@wilmerhale.com -- in New York City,
Attorneys for Defendant Karen Hon.
ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP, James N. Kramer --
jkramer@orrick.com -- Alexander K. Talarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- in San Francisco, California, Attorneys
for Defendant Gregory W. Becker.
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, Jennifer S. Windom --
jwindom@kramerlevin.com -- in Washington, D.C.; Kristopher Kastens
-- kkastens@kramerlevin.com -- in Redwood Shores, California; Barry
H. Berke -- bberke@kramerlevin.com -- Darren A. Laverne --
dlaverne@kramerlevin.com -- Daniel M. Ketani --
dketani@kramerlevin.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendant Daniel J. Beck.
DLA PIPER LLP (US), Richard H. Zelichov --
richard.zelichov@us.dlapiper.com -- in Los Angeles, California;
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP, Bruce G. Vanyo -- bruce@katten.com --
Paul S. Yong -- paul.yong@katten.com -- in Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Defendant John S. Clendening.
KING & SPALDING LLP, Lisa R. Bugni -- lbugni@kslaw.com -- in San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant KPMG LLP.
BRAUN HAGEY & BORDEN LLP, Ellen Leonida -- leonida@braunhagey.com
-- in San Francisco, California; FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEIILER ADELMAN &
ROBBINS LLP, Jason C. Rubinstein -- jrubinstein@fklaw.com -- in New
York City, Attorneys for Defendant Anthony DeChellis.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Nicole L. Chessari -- NChessari@goodwinlaw.com
-- in Redwood City, California; Jonathan A. Shapiro --
JShapiro@goodwinlaw.com -- in San Francisco, California; Robert
Tiefenbrun -- RTiefenbrun@goodwinlaw.com -- in Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Cooper.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, Daniel H.R. Laguardia --
daniel.laguardia@shearman.com -- in San Francisco, California; Adam
Hakki -- adam.hakki@shearman.com -- Daniel Lewis --
daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- Joshua Ebersole --
joshua.ebersole@sheaman.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.
GUEST SERVICES: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Matthews Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan C. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies
as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit styled ROBERT
MATTHEWS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GUEST SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00910-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C.).
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
filed March 20, 2024, and the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class
Action Complaint filed April 10, 2024.
The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint within 21 days
following receipt of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, Judge Rodriguez says, the amendment is as a matter of
course, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
The Court makes no determination as to the merits of any of the
Plaintiff's claims and all objections and defenses raised by the
Defendants in its initial Motion are preserved.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
is administratively denied as moot without prejudice. The Clerk is
directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties
and to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58sy7ath from PacerMonitor.com.
ILLUMINA INC: Kangas, Roy and Fund Securities Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California consolidates three lawsuits: LESLIE KANGAS,
Plaintiff v. ILLUMINA, INC., FRANCIS A. DESOUZA and JOHN THOMPSON,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02082-LL-MMP (S.D. Cal.); Roy v.
Illumina, Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-2327-LL-MMP; and Louisiana
Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc., et al., No.
23-cv-2328-LL-MMP.
Before the Court is a set of four motions to consolidate and to
appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this action. Four
movants request consolidation and appointment as lead plaintiff
with their attorneys designated as lead counsel: (1) Camelot Event
Driven Fund, A Series of Frank Funds Trust; (2) KBC Asset
Management NV; (3) Wayne County Employees' Retirement System,
Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, Macomb County Retiree
Health Care Fund, Macomb County Intermediate Retirees Medical
Benefits Trust, and Jackson County Employees' Retirement System
(collectively the "Retirement Systems"); and (4)
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK
Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (collectively "Universal"), and
ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH ("ACATIS").
KBC, Retirement Systems, Universal, and ACATIS have opposed each
other's motions and replied in support of their own motions.
Camelot filed a non-opposition to the competing motions.
For reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the motions
to consolidate and grants Universal and ACATIS's motion to appoint
lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as
lead counsel. The Court denies all other competing motions.
The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of
persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Illumina,
Inc.'s securities. Illumina is a genetic and genomic analysis
company with a portfolio of integrated sequencing and microarray
systems, consumables, and analysis tools designed to accelerate and
simplify genetic analysis.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about Illumina's business, operations, and prospects during the
class period. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of the
Company's insiders had personal financial motives for acquiring
GRAIL; (2) that, contrary to Illumina's attempts to discount
Icahn's criticism, Icahn had accurately concluded that insiders'
interests did not align with the Company's best interests; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
The parties move to consolidate the three securities class actions.
The three cases cover overlapping class periods and involve similar
factual and legal issues arising out of the same alleged misconduct
and fraud by the Defendants. Additionally, all three cases assert
the same two causes of action: (1) violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; and (2) violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. Further, no oppositions to the proposed
consolidation of the three cases have been filed. Accordingly, the
Court grants the motions to consolidate.
On Nov. 10, 2023, the same date that Kangas filed her complaint,
Kangas' counsel published notice of the Kangas litigation in
Business Wire, a national business-oriented publication. Camelot,
KBC, Retirement Systems, and Universal and ACATIS filed motions to
be appointed as lead plaintiff pursuant to the notice and within
the allotted sixty-day period. Accordingly, the Court finds that
notice in the Kangas action was proper and Camelot, KBC, Retirement
Systems, and Universal and ACATIS satisfied the statutory
procedural requirements.
Based on the movants' representations in the motions, the Court
finds Universal and ACATIS possessed the largest financial interest
during the Louisiana Sheriffs class period. Universal and ACATIS
represent that they sustained aggregated losses of approximately
$35,084,945 on a last in, first out (LIFO) basis. In contrast, KBC
represents that it sustained losses of approximately $16,736,945.00
on a LIFO basis. Additionally, Retirement Systems represents that
it has sustained losses of approximately $4,922,451.00 on a LIFO
basis.
The Court rejects KBC's request to apply the Kangas or Roy class
period and concludes that Universal and ACATIS have the largest
financial interest during the Louisiana Sheriffs class period.
Judge Lopez opines that Universal and ACATIS's interests in
prosecuting this case are aligned with those of the class because
Universal and ACATIS seek to recover for the Defendants' allegedly
false and misleading statements about Illumina's business,
operations, and prospects. There is also no indication that
Universal and ACATIS have a conflict of interest with those of the
class. Further, the extent of Universal and ACATIS's financial loss
demonstrates to the Court that they have a sufficient interest in
the outcome of the case to ensure vigorous advocacy.
In addition, Universal and ACATIS's proposed counsel, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, is experienced and qualified to
prosecute securities class actions. Accordingly, the Court grants
Universal and ACATIS's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and denies
KBC and Retirement Systems' motions to appoint lead plaintiff.
Universal and ACATIS have selected Bernstein Litowitz as lead
counsel. Judge Lopez notes that Bernstein Litowitz has extensive
experience serving as lead counsel on behalf of investors in
numerous securities class actions. As such, the Court finds
Bernstein Litowitz has the experience and qualifications to
adequately represent the class. Accordingly, the Court will approve
Bernstein Litowitz as Lead Counsel.
For these reasons, the Court grants the motions for consolidation,
and grants Universal and ACATIS's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of their selection of lead counsel. The
Court denies Camelot, Retirement Systems, and KBC's motions to
appoint lead plaintiff and approve their selection of lead
counsel.
The Court consolidates Kangas v. Illumina, Inc., et al., No.
23-cv-2082-LL-MMP, Roy v. Illumina, Inc., et al., No.
23-cv-2327-LL-MMP, and Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v.
Illumina, Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-2328-LL-MMP. Each document filed
by a party in the consolidated litigation will bear the following
caption: In re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
23-cv-2082-LL-MMP. All filings must only be made in the
consolidated case.
The Court appoints Universal and ACATIS as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel in the
consolidated action.
Universal and ACATIS will filed a consolidated complaint no later
than May 9, 2024. The Defendants will respond to the consolidated
complaint no later than June 6, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5aset6rb from PacerMonitor.com.
IQVIA INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, MD,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly- situated
persons, v. IQVIA INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05365-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed
motion to file under seal:
(1) certain portions of IQVIA's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification,
(2) certain portions of IQVIA's Motion to Exclude Certain
Opinions
of the Plaintiff's Expert Christopher Lee Howard, and
(3) certain portions of the Declaration of Tiffany Cheung and
certain attached exhibits.
IQVIA is a global provider of advanced analytics, technology
solutions, and clinical research services to the life sciences
industry.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ypPrfR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
Bonnie Lau, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com
BLau@mofo.com
- and -
Joe Nguyen, Esq.
STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
2005 Market Street, Suite 2600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 564-8000
E-mail: JNguyen@stradley.com
- and -
Edward Eberspacher, Esq.
MEYER LAW GROUP, LLC
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 265-0565
E-mail: TEberspacher@meyerlex.com
KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Doe Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02865-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs are seven individuals, who are proceeding
anonymously: John Doe, John Doe II, Jane Doe, and Jane Does II-V.
They have filed a lawsuit on their own behalf and on the behalf of
others similarly situated against three Kaiser entities: Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan., Inc. ("KFHP"); Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals; and The Permanente Medical Group ("TPMG") (collectively
referred to as "Kaiser").
According to the Plaintiffs, Kaiser installed code from third
parties on its website and two mobile applications (i.e., the
Kaiser Permanente App and the Kaiser Permanente Washington App);
that code allows the third parties to intercept the content of a
Kaiser plan member's patient status, identifying information,
medical topics researched, choices made, information shared and
communications with their medical providers, including personally
identifiable medical information and other confidential information
and communications, when that information is in transit (i.e.,
between the Kaiser plan member and Kaiser).
The third parties whose code is allegedly on the Kaiser website and
mobile applications are: Quantum Metric, Twitter, Adobe, Bing,
Google, and Dynatrace.
Now pending before the Court is Kaiser's motion to dismiss. Kaiser
has challenged each of the twenty-one claims asserted in the
operative first amended complaint ("FAC"). All of the claims are
class claims. In some instances, the Plaintiffs have asserted
claims on behalf of a multistate class (i.e., a class consisting of
people, who live in the states where Kaiser operates, also referred
to as the Kaiser Operating States Class).
In other instances, the Plaintiffs have asserted claims on behalf
of a single state subclass. They have asserted a number of
different claims. A few are based on the common law -- e.g.,
intrusion upon seclusion, breach of contract (express and implied),
and negligence. Most are based on a statute. The statutes include
wiretapping statutes, computer crime statutes, consumer protection
statutes, and statutes similar to the federal Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA").
In the FAC, the Plaintiffs allege that KFHP, Hospitals, and TPMG
operate under the trade name Kaiser Permanente. KFHP offers health
care plans, with hospital care and physician care provided through
hospitals and physician practices operated by Hospitals and TPMG.
Altogether, Kaiser operates in nine jurisdictions: California,
Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Virginia, Washington,
and Washington, D.C. (referred to collectively as the "Kaiser
Operating States"). The Plaintiffs and the members of the classes
they seek to represent are members of Kaiser health plans in the
various jurisdictions.
Kaiser operates a website and two mobile applications. Through the
website, Kaiser plan members can perform various tasks that
traditionally were only available by physically visiting their
health care providers' offices or speaking directly to their health
care providers, such as scheduling appointments; checking medical
results; reviewing medical histories; researching doctors,
locations, and medical services; communicating with providers and
paying medical bills.
Members can do certain tasks, such as researching health conditions
and finding doctors, without logging into a patient portal. For
other tasks, such as accessing medical information, scheduling
appointments, and communicating with providers, members must log
into the patient portal. By signing into the patient portal, a
Kaiser plan member agrees to the website and mobile application
Terms and Conditions ("TAC") and related Privacy Statement.
Similarly, Kaiser plan members can also use mobile applications to
communicate with their doctor's office, schedule appointments,
review information about past appointments, fill or refill
prescriptions, view their medical history (including allergies,
immunizations, ongoing health conditions, and lab test results),
choose a doctor, and receive personalized reminders and health
information.
Through the TAC and Privacy Statement, Kaiser expressly and
impliedly promises Kaiser plan members that it will maintain the
privacy and confidentiality of the information shared and the
communications engaged in, on the Site, Portal, and mobile
applications. But despite these promises, Kaiser intentionally
installed code from multiple third parties throughout the Kaiser
Permanente website and mobile applications that allows third party
companies, such as Quantum Metric, Twitter, Adobe, Bing, and
Google, as well as Dynatrace (collectively, "Third Party
Wiretappers") to intercept the content of the Plaintiffs and Class
Members' patient status, identifying information, medical topics
researched, choices made, information shared, and others.
Based on the allegations in the FAC, it appears that Kaiser
installed the code from third parties so that Kaiser could use the
information collected by the third parties for its own benefit.
However, it also appears that third parties used the information
collected for their own benefit and not just Kaiser's.
The Plaintiffs maintain that they and others similarly situated did
not consent to the interception of their information by the third
parties. They also contend that Kaiser allowed the interception
even though it was required to protect that information under,
e.g., HIPAA.
Based on the allegations here, as well as other allegations, the
Plaintiffs bring the following class claims (some on behalf of a
multistate class and some on behalf of a subclass(es)): (1)
Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (2)
Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (3) Common law
invasion of privacy -- intrusion upon seclusion; (4) Invasion of
privacy and violation of the California Constitution; (5) Breach of
express contract; (6) Breach of implied contract; (7) Negligence
per se; (8) Violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act; (9) Violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act; (10) Statutory larceny; (11) Violation of the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (brought by
Jane Doe II only); (12) Violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (brought by John Doe II only); (13) Violation
of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (brought by John Doe
II only); (14) Violation of the Georgia Insurance and Information
Privacy Protection Act (brought by John Doe II only); (15)
Violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Act (brought by Jane Doe III only); (16) Violation of the Oregon
Unlawful Trade Practices Act (brought by Jane Doe V only); (17)
Violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (brought by Jane Doe
IV only); (18) Violation of the Virginia Insurance Information and
Privacy Protection Act (brought by Jane Doe IV only); (19)
Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (brought by
Jane Doe only); Violation of the Washington Privacy Act (brought by
Jane Doe only); and (21) Violation of the Washington Health Care
Information Act (brought by Jane Doe only).
Kaiser has challenged all of the Plaintiffs' claims, arguing that
some of the Plaintiffs lack standing to proceed with suit and that
all of the claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim
for relief.
As an initial matter, Kaiser notes that the Plaintiffs have sued
three Kaiser entities: KFHP, Hospitals, and TPMG. Kaiser argues
that the claims against two of the entities -- Hospitals and TPMG
(i.e., the health care providers) -- should be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because
the Plaintiffs have not alleged any wrongdoing on their part and
instead have engaged in impermissible group pleading (i.e., lumping
all Defendants together).
Judge Chen finds that Kaiser's argument has merit. The Plaintiffs
have alleged in conclusory terms only that all Kaiser entities have
a hand in the operation of the website and mobile applications. But
the documents attached to the FAC indicate that the website and
mobile applications at issue are owned and operated by KFHP only.
This provides a basis for suit against KPHP, but there is no
indication that the health care providers (Hospitals and TPMG) had
anything to do with how the website and mobile applications are
run, even if Kaiser plan members engaged in communications with
their health care providers through the website and mobile
applications.
The Court, therefore, grants the motion to dismiss Hospitals and
TPMG from the case but with leave to amend. If the Plaintiffs do
amend to assert claims against Hospitals and TPMG, the Plaintiffs
must have a good faith basis, consistent with their Rule 11
obligations, to allege that Hospitals and TPMG engaged in
wrongdoing vis-a-vis the operation of the website and mobile
applications. The Court also gives the Plaintiffs the option of not
amending now but rather seeking leave to amend should, e.g.,
discovery reveal that Hospitals and/or TPMG played a role that
would support liability.
Kaiser argues next that all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail because
consent is a defense to all of the claims and the Plaintiffs
consented to Kaiser's alleged conduct (namely, allowing third
parties to intercept information) when they agreed to the TAC for
the website and mobile applications and the related Privacy
Statement.
As a preliminary matter, Judge Chen notes, Kaiser does not seem to
dispute the Plaintiffs' contention that consent is an affirmative
defense -- i.e., an issue to be proven by a defendant and not a
plaintiff. However, a complaint may still be subject to dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) based on an affirmative defense so long as the
affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint. Kaiser
asserts that that is the case here.
Judge Chen opines that Kaiser has not shown at this juncture that
all Kaiser members consented to the alleged interception of the
breadth of information at issue.
In light of these considerations, the Court does not, at this
juncture, make a blanket ruling on consent that covers all claims
asserted by the Plaintiffs in the FAC. This is without prejudice to
the Court entertaining the issue of consent at a later juncture.
For the remainder of its motion to dismiss, Kaiser makes arguments
that are specific to each of the twenty-one causes of action
alleged in the Plaintiffs' operative complaint.
The Plaintiffs have essentially asserted two different factual
scenarios supporting liability: (1) Kaiser used third parties to
collect and/or use information for the benefit of Kaiser
(essentially, hiring third parties as vendors); and (2) Kaiser
allowed third parties to collect and/or use information for the
benefit of the third parties themselves (essentially, selling or
otherwise giving information to third parties).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the FAC does not always
make clear which third parties fell into which category above. The
Court recognizes that a third party could theoretically fall into
both categories. This is a significant problem, Judge Chen says.
Although the Plaintiffs has made many allegations specific to the
various third parties, the Plaintiffs do not clearly differentiate
among the third parties with respect to the categories here.
Putting aside this problem, the Court has a more fundamental
concern with the factual scenario described in (2) above. Even if
the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that all six of the third
parties collected and/or used information about Kaiser plan members
for the third parties' own benefit, the Plaintiffs have not alleged
that the third parties did so with the knowledge and/or approval of
Kaiser.
In other words, Judge Chen explains, as the FAC is currently pled,
Kaiser simply hired the third parties to do work for Kaiser, which
exposed the third parties to personal information about members,
but there is no indication that Kaiser then signed off (either
explicitly or implicitly) on the third parties taking that
information and using it for their own purposes (and not solely for
Kaiser's use). In fact, if anything, the Privacy Statement suggests
that Kaiser took some steps to guard against such conduct on the
part of third parties.
Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs have pled claims based on
the factual scenario in (2), the Court dismisses all such claims as
there is no alleged wrongdoing by Kaiser -- i.e., that Kaiser knew
and/or approved of third parties collecting and/or using
information for their own purposes. Indeed, there is not even an
allegation that Kaiser negligently failed to take steps to ensure
that third parties could not collect and/or use information for
their own benefit. Thus, the remainder of the order addresses the
Plaintiffs' claims as based on the factual scenario in (1) -- i.e.,
that Kaiser hired third parties to collect and/or use information
for the benefit of Kaiser.
For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants in part
and denies in part Kaiser's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the
motion to dismiss:
* John Doe II and Jane Does II-V is denied;
* Hospitals and TPMG is granted;
* is denied to the extent Kaiser argues that consent may be
determined on a blanket-wide basis;
* the ECPA claim is granted;
* the CIPA claim is granted;
* the claim for intrusion upon seclusion is granted;
* the claim for violation of privacy as protected by the
California Constitution is granted;
* the claim for breach of express contract is granted;
* the claim for breach of implied contract is denied;
* the negligence claim is denied;
* the CLRA claim is granted;
* the CMIA claim is granted;
* the claim for theft by false pretenses is granted;
* the DCCPPA claim is granted;
* the GUDTPA claim is granted;
* the GCSPA claim is granted;
* the GIIPPA claim is granted;
* the MWESA claim is denied;
* the OUTPA claim is denied;
* the VCCA claim is granted;
* the VIIPPA claim is denied;
* the WCPA claim is denied;
* the WPA claim is granted; and
* the WHCA claim is granted.
The Plaintiffs have leave to amend on dismissed claims. The second
amended complaint ("SAC") will be filed by May 9, 2024. Kaiser will
then have until June 6, 2024, to file a response to the SAC,
whether the response is an answer or another motion to dismiss. If
the Plaintiffs do not file a SAC by the specified deadline, then
Kaiser will have until June 6, 2024, to file an answer to the FAC.
The Order disposes of Docket No. 88.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ynbjyxm6 from PacerMonitor.com.
KAREN BENNETTE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Charles Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles v. Bennette, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01079-JES (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H75Z27 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KIMBER TAYLOR: Bid to Bifurcate Chianne Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIANNE D.; C.D., by and
through her mother and next friend, Chianne D.; A.V., by and
through her mother and next friend, Jennifer V.; KIMBER TAYLOR; and
K.H., by and through his mother and next friend, Kimber Taylor, v.
JASON WEIDA, in his official capacity as Secretary for the FLORIDA
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, and SHEVAUN HARRIS, in her
official capacity as Secretary for the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Case No. 3:23-cv-00985-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered an order denying
Defendants' motion to bifurcate.
The Defendants do not argue and have not shown that bifurcation
will promote the interests of convenience, expedition, and economy.
The Court is also persuaded that bifurcation will lead to
duplication of evidence and witnesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xFWeje at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEE COUNTY, AL: Court Dismisses Ritter Action w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HENRY RITTER, v. LEE
COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Case No. 3:24-cv-00067-RAH-JTA (M.D.
Ala.), the Hon. Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. entered an order
dismissing Ritter action without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter this document on the
civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Lee County Detention Center serves as the detention facility for
pre-trial felony defendants and those convicted of misdemeanor
offenses.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V3KoPo at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Turner Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS TURNER, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-11530-FDS (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order impounding and placing under seal Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
13 and 14 to the April 26, 2024 Declaration of Annabel Rodriguez in
Support of Liberty Mutual's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification and in Support of Liberty Mutual's Motion
for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment.
The documents sought to be impounded contain confidential business
information (including internal company phone calls and emails),
and they have been designated as such pursuant to the Proposed
Protective Order.
The Plaintiff does not oppose the relief. Moreover, impoundment
will not harm the public interest, as there is no generalized
interest of the public to have access to Liberty Mutual's
confidential business information.
Liberty Mutual thus respectfully requests that an impounding Order
be issued and that it remain in effect until such time that it be
lifted by further order of the Court, and that the papers be kept
in the Clerk's non-public information file during any
post-impoundment period.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W4RRML at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Margaret H. Warner, Esq.
Annabel Rodriguez, Esq.
Dmitriy Tishyevich, Esq.
Richard Diggs, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
500 North Capital Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-1531
Telephone: (202) 756-8000
Facsimile: (202) 756-8087
E-mail: mwarner@mwe.com
anrodriguez@mwe.com
dtishyevich@mwe.com
rdiggs@mwe.com
LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cuevas Modified to Dec. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the second joint
stipulation modifying class certification schedule and ADR deadline
as follows:
-- The Motion for Class Certification March 11, 2025
hearing, previously scheduled for
December 3, 2024, will be conducted
via Zoom at 1:30 p.m. on:
-- The ADR Deadline is extended from Sept. 23, 2024
June 5, 2024 to:
-- Motion for Class Certification is Dec. 30, 2024
due by:
-- Responses are due by: Jan. 27, 2025
-- Replies are due by: Feb. 18, 2025
Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza
restaurants.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cl8RTy at no extra
charge.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: H&R's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Hunt Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants H&R Block's motion to compel
arbitration in the lawsuit styled JUSTIN HUNT, Plaintiff v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-04953-PCP
(N.D. Cal.).
In the putative consumer class action, Plaintiff Justin Hunt
alleges that his sensitive tax return information was improperly
transmitted to Facebook and Google when he used H&R Block's online
service to file his taxes. He brings this action against HRB Tax
Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC (collectively "H&R Block"), as well
as Meta Platforms, Inc., and Google, LLC. H&R Block has moved to
compel arbitration under the terms of its Online Services
Agreement.
Mr. Hunt used H&R Block's online service to file his taxes from
2018 to 2023. He alleges that H&R Block transmitted sensitive tax
return information to Meta and Google through the use of tracking
tools installed on H&R Block's website.
According to H&R Block, both new and returning users are required
to agree to the H&R Block Online Service Agreement each year they
use the company's online tax filing service. The agreement includes
an arbitration provision. H&R Block says when Mr. Hunt logged into
his account in April 2023, he was presented with a screen that
required him to check a box next to the statement, "I agree to the
terms and conditions of the Electronic Communications Consent and
the Online Services Agreement, which includes the requirement that
any dispute be resolved through binding arbitration." The
underlined terms (which appeared in green) were hyperlinks to the
complete versions of the indicated documents.
According to H&R Block records, Mr. Hunt completed this process and
checked the box indicating his agreement to the Online Services
Agreement on April 5, 2023. Mr. Hunt does not dispute that he
accepted the Online Service Agreement in this manner. The version
of the H&R Block Online Services Agreement that he agreed to
includes a section entitled "11. Arbitration If A Dispute Arises."
Instructions for opting out of the arbitration agreement appear in
bold text in a box directly following the first paragraph of the
arbitration agreement.
The agreement also requires parties to pursue an informal
resolution process before commencing arbitration and specifies that
arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration
Association ('AAA') pursuant to its Consumer Arbitration Rules, as
modified by the Arbitration Agreement.
Mr. Hunt filed his first complaint in this case in September 2023.
He filed the operative second amended complaint in December 2023,
alleging claims against H&R Block, Meta, and Google for violating
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the
Internal Revenue Code. H&R Block then filed a motion to compel
arbitration of Mr. Hunt's claims.
Mr. Hunt does not dispute that he entered into an arbitration
agreement with H&R Block by accepting the Online Services
Agreement. He argues that the Agreement is unenforceable, however,
because it was induced by fraud and because it is unconscionable.
He also argues that the agreement does not cover his claims.
Judge Pitts holds that none of Mr. Hunt's arguments has merit.
Judge Pitts finds that Mr. Hunt has not established that the
Agreement was induced by fraud. He has also not established that
the Agreement is unconscionable. In sum, Judge Pitts says, he has
not shown that the arbitration agreement he entered into with H&R
Block was induced by fraud or unconscionable. He is, therefore,
bound by its terms.
Mr. Hunt separately argues that even if the arbitration agreement
is enforceable, his claims here do not fall within its scope. In
his view, his complaint is about H&R Block's use of Meta and Google
tracking tools, not his use of H&R Block services, and thus falls
outside the scope of the arbitration provision.
The Court is skeptical that Section 1.1 of the Online Services
Agreement limits the clear language of Section 11 of the
arbitration agreement in the manner Mr. Hunt proposes. But even if
it does, Judge Pitts says Mr. Hunt's argument would fail because
his claims all relate to his use of H&R Block's products and
services. The tax return information that was allegedly transmitted
to Google and Meta by H&R Block was information that he provided to
H&R Block while using its products and services, and the
transmission of that information occurred in the course of his use
of those products and services as part of Google and Meta's
tracking of that use.
Judge Pitts opines that these claims closely relate to Mr. Hunt's
use of H&R Block services, even if they also arise from H&R Block's
use of third-party tools in providing those services. Mr. Hunt's
claims in this action are, therefore, covered by his arbitration
agreement with H&R Block, and he must pursue those claims in
arbitration rather than in court.
For these reasons, H&R Block's motion to compel arbitration is
granted. Mr. Hunt and the H&R Block parties are ordered to proceed
with arbitration in the manner provided in their agreement. Mr.
Hunt's claims against H&R Block will be stayed until arbitration is
complete.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44s5bk5w from PacerMonitor.com.
METRO NORTH: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Davis Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHULAND DAVIS, v. METRO
NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00387-ER-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a general pretrial
management order:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- No later than May 3, 2024, the parties shall submit a joint
status
letter (1) summarizing the discovery remaining to be done; (2)
proposing new deadlines for the service of expert reports and
for expert depositions; and (3) advising the Court whether the
parties are interested in pursuing a judicially supervised
settlement conference.
Metro-North is a commuter railroad serving northern suburbs of New
York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YPr5xQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
NESTLE USA: Parties Seek Partial Stay of Discovery
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE FALCONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NESTLE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties seek an order
granting a short partial stay of discovery until a ruling on the
pending motion for class certification, and a continuance of the
discovery cutoff of three months after a ruling on the motion for
class certification.
The Parties have engaged in substantial discovery over the past
fourteen months, including serving and responding to each side's
interrogatories and requests for production of documents; taking
multiple key witness, third party and expert depositions; reviewing
over 80,000 pages of documents; having multiple discovery
conferences with the Court moving the case forward; and engaging in
substantial expert discovery.
Two FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) depositions on Defendant's supply chain
practices are being scheduled at this time and will not be subject
to the partial stay.
Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0k4hpm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
Aya Dardari, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW
HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-4990
E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
jfields@sshhzlaw.com
adardari@sshhzlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Perlette Jura, Esq.
Al Kelly, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
cchorba@gibsondunn.com
pjura@gibsondunn.com
akelly@gibsondunn.com
NEW YORK LIFE: Linhart Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION, and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive,
Case No. 5:21-cv-01640-CJC-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting application to file under seal her
reply memorandum in support of her motion for class certification
and appointment of class representative and class counsel.
The Plaintiff Barbara Linhart and the Defendant have designated
certain documents as Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant
to the Protective Order in this action.
On Jan. 17, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff shared with the Defendant a
list of documents designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential
by the Defendant that would be referenced in Plaintiff's Memorandum
in Support of her Motion for Class Certification.
On Jan. 18, 2024, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that it
intended to stand on some of its confidentiality designations
for these documents while agreeing to waive others. The Plaintiff
therefore applied for an order regarding the sealing of these
documents to comply with the provisions set forth in the Protective
Order.
New York Life provides annuity services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=plkRk2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
abigailp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601-1604
Telephone: (312) 782-9090
E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Mitchell H. Macknin, Esq.
Daniel A. Shmikler, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
Martin V. Sinclair, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
mhmacknin@sperling-law.com
dshmikler@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
mvs@sperling-law.com
NONSTOP ADMIN: Parties Seek More Time for Expert Disclosure Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PRUTSMAN, AMIRA
MARTZ, SIMCHA RINGEL, NAIOMI MARDEN, ALANA BALAGOT, CORINNE WARREN,
SUNNY LAI, AND DAVID KLEIN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION AND INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC., Inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01131-RFL (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending time to file
class certification primary expert disclosure and amend pleadings.
Event Original Enlarged
Deadline Deadline
Class Certification Primary May 13, 2024 July 12, 2024
Expert Disclosures
Last Day to Amend the May 20, 2024 July 19, 2024
Pleadings
On March 14, 2023, the Plaintiff Prutsman filed a Complaint and
several related actions were thereafter filed,
On May 4, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to
Consolidate the Related Actions.
On Jan. 24, 2024, this Court held a Case Management Conference and
set
a case schedule, up to and including the Dec. 17, 2024 hearing date
for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court further
set the deadline to complete ADR as May 31, 2024.
Nonstop is a provider of healthcare benefits and administrative
services intended to reduce the inflationary costs of healthcare.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=faczr5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Van Note Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
221 W Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
jnelson@milber.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jill H. Fertel, Esq.
CIPRIANI & WERNER PC
650 Washington Rd., Ste. 700
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Telephone: (412) 563-2500
OREGON: Bid for Protective Order in Wyatt B. Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled WYATT B., et al., Plaintiffs v. TINA KOTEK,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00556-AA (D. Or.), Judge Ann
Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene
Division, issued an Opinion & Order:
(a) granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
Motion for Protective Order; and
(b) granting their Motion to Quash.
Christine Kotek is an American politician serving as the 39th
governor of Oregon. The current dispute arises out of a report
prepared by Stacey Moss, an expert for the Defendants, working for
an organization called Public Knowledge, LLC. The Moss Report was
disclosed to Plaintiffs in December 2023 and was subsequently
provided to members of the Oregon legislature.
On Feb. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs served the Defendants with a
Request for Production seeking:
(1) Request No. 1: All documents and communications between
and among Public Knowledge LLC directors, officers, and/or
employees relating to the development, foundation, and/or
bases of the opinions and/or findings in "Oregon Child
Welfare Review Assessment Findings Report" and/or "Oregon
Child Welfare Review Draft Assessment Findings Report,"
dated Dec. 15, 2023;
(2) Request No. 2: All documents and communications between
Public Knowledge LLC and any non-attorney agents,
employees, and/or officers of Defendant ODHS relating to
the development, foundation, or bases of opinions set
forth in "Oregon Child Welfare Review Assessment Findings
Report" and/or "Oregon Child Welfare Review Draft
Assessment Findings Report," dated Dec. 15, 2023;
(3) Request No. 3: All documents and communications between
Defendant ODHS agents, directors, employees, and/or
officers relating to issuance of any media announcement,
press releases, publications and/or dissemination of
Oregon Child Welfare Review Assessment Findings Report"
and/or "Oregon Child Welfare Review Draft Assessment
Findings Report," dated Dec. 15, 2023;
(4) Request No. 4: All documents and communications relating
to Oregon Department of Justice's ("ODOJ") involvement
and/or Markowitz Herbold PC's involvement in the
development, foundation, or bases of opinions set forth in
"Oregon Child Welfare Review Assessment Findings Report"
and/or "Oregon Child Welfare Review Draft Assessment
Findings Report," dated Dec. 15, 2023; and
(5) Request No. 5: All documents and communications between
and/or among Public Knowledge LLC, the ODOJ, and/or
Markowitz Herbold relating to ODOJ's involvement and or
Markowitz Herbold's involvement in Defendant ODHS's
issuance of media announcements, press releases,
publication and/or dissemination of "Oregon Child Welfare
Review Assessment Findings Report" and/or "Oregon Child
Welfare Review Draft Assessment Findings Report," dated
Dec. 15, 2023.
On March 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs issued a Notice of Video Taped
Deposition Duces Tecum to Moss, directing Moss to appear for a
deposition on March 18, 2024, with substantially the same material
sought by the Requests for Production.
On March 11, 2024, the Defendants provided their response and
objections to the Plaintiffs' RFP. Inter alia, the Defendants
asserted privilege as to the internal communications between Moss
and her assistants, citing In re Application of Republic of
Ecuador, 280 F.R.D. 506, 514 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ("In re Ecuador").
In the present motion, the Defendants seek a protective order
preventing disclosure of the materials sought in the Plaintiff's
requests for production, on the basis of work product and
privilege, and seek to quash the subpoena of Moss, which seeks
substantially the same material.
The Plaintiffs' RFP No. 1 seeks "communications between and among
Public Knowledge LLC directors, officers, and/or employees"
relating to the development of the Moss Report. In essence, Judge
Aiken says this request seeks internal communications between Moss
and her assistants about the Moss Report.
The Court declines to order production of the internal
communications between Moss and her assistants, as those
communications are protected work product.
With respect to the production of documents, the Defendants
represent that they have produced all relevant non-privileged
documents and communications regarding the Moss Report as of
February 2024. The Court accepts that representation.
The Plaintiffs' Request No. 4 seeks "all documents and
communications relating to Oregon Department of Justice's ("ODOJ")
involvement and/or Markowitz Herbold PC's involvement in the
development, foundation, or bases of opinions" set out in the
Moss Report. On its face, this request appears to seek
communications between the Defendants' counsel and their expert,
Moss.
Judge Aiken opines that such communications are protected from
disclosure unless they fall within one of the specific exceptions
laid out in Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i)-(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Defendants represent that they have already provided
the Plaintiffs with all responsive material that falls within those
exceptions.
The Court concludes that the Defendants need not provide additional
material in response to the Plaintiffs' Request No. 4 unless that
material falls within one of the enumerated exceptions in Rule
26(b)(4)(C)(i)-(iii). All other communications between the
Defendants' counsel and Moss or her assistants are protected from
disclosure.
The Plaintiffs' Request for Production No. 2 seeks "documents and
communications between Public Knowledge LLC and any non-attorney
agents, employees, and/or officers of Defendant ODHS relating to
the development, foundation, or bases of opinions" set out in the
Moss Report.
The Court concludes that communications between Moss, or Moss's
assistants, and non-attorney employees of DHS are not protected
work product. However, they may still be exempted from disclosure
if they are genuine attorney-client or attorney-expert
communications or if the materials exchanged constitute drafts of
the Moss Report.
If the Defendants intend to assert attorney-client privilege for
any of those communications or intend to assert that the material
exchanged constituted a draft report, Judge Aiken says they should
produce a privilege log to support their claim of privilege.
Otherwise, Judge Aiken holds that the Defendants are to produce any
material responsive to the Plaintiffs' Request for Production No.
2.
In Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 5, the Plaintiffs seek
material related to "media announcements, press releases,
publication, and/or dissemination" of the Moss Report. Without
needing to reach any question of privilege or protection, the Court
concludes that such material is not relevant to any claim or
defense presented by either party. As such, Judge Aiken holds that
it falls beyond the scope of permissible discovery.
The details of either party's media or public relations strategy
will not assist the Court in resolving the issues before it, and
the Plaintiffs' request for those materials is, frankly, a waste of
time for all concerned, Judge Aiken points out. The Defendants need
not provide any material responsive to the Plaintiffs' Requests
Nos. 3 and 5.
Finally, the Defendants move to quash the subpoena of Moss seeking
essentially the same material as the Requests for Production.
The Court's rulings on the request for a protective order have
substantively disposed of these issues, in that the Court has
either found the material sought to be exempt from disclosure or,
in the case of Request for Production No. 2, that the Defendants
must produce a privilege log for any claim of privilege or
protection from disclosure.
The Court, therefore, grants the Defendants' Motion and the
subpoena of Moss is quashed.
For these reasons, the Court rules that Defendants' Motion for a
Protective Order is granted in part and denied in part. The
Defendants are not required to produce any additional materials
responsive to the Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 4,
and 5. If the Defendants are in possession of material responsive
to the Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 2, they are to either
produce it or else provide a privilege log setting forth the reason
the material sought is covered by some privilege or protection. The
Defendants' Motion to Quash is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated April 11,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/33rrpfpw from
PacerMonitor.com.
PHILIPS RS: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP,
BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:21-mc-01230-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Joy Flowers Conti entered a memorandum that:
(1) all the requirements for class certification have been met;
(2) there was appropriate notice of the settlement of the
Economic
Loss Claims;
(3) the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and
(4) the distribution plan is fair reasonable and adequate.
The class to be certified is defined as follows:
"Plaintiffs and all other individuals or entities in the
United
States [including its Territories (American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands), and the District of Columbia], including
individuals
who are United States citizens, residents, United States
military, diplomatic personnel and employees living or
stationed
overseas, who or which, prior to the announcement of the
Recalls, either (a) purchased, leased, rented, or paid for
(in
whole or part), or were prescribed a Recalled Device
("Users"),
or (b) reimbursed (in whole or part) a User's payment to
purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise pay for a Recalled
Device,
including insurers, self-funded employers, and other
third-party
payers ("Payers"). Individuals or entities whose payment
obligations with respect to a particular Recalled Device
preceded the announcement of the relevant Recall are part of
the
Settlement Class even if certain of their payment obligations
postdated the Recall (e.g., certain renters and lessees)."
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $94.4 million. Along with their request for attorneys'
fees in the amount of $94.4 million, the Settlement Class Counsel
are seeking $571,374.38 in expenses
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 25, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=06BJsP
at no extra charge.[CC]
PRO CUSTOM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Niemczyk Extended to June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIEMCZYK v. PRO CUSTOM
SOLAR, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-7846-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Michael Hammer entered Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows:
Event Current
Requested
Deadline
Extension
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class May 6, 2024 June 7,
2024
Certification
Defendant's Opposition Motion June 28, 2024 July 29,
2024
for Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support July 30, 2024 Aug. 30,
2024
of Class Certification
Pro Custom provides renewable energy services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7eU5NH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas J. Cotton, Esq.
SCHENK, PRICE, SMITH & KING, LLP
220 Park Avenue
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0991
Telephone: (973) 539-1000
E-mail: tjc@spsk.com
PRO CUSTOM: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Walters Extended to June 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walters, et al. v. Pro
Custom Solar, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00247-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Michael Hammer entered Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows:
Event Current
Requested
Deadline
Extension
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class May 6, 2024 June 7,
2024
Certification
Defendant's Opposition Motion June 28, 2024 July 29,
2024
for Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support July 30, 2024 Aug. 30,
2024
of Class Certification
Pro Custom provides renewable energy services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vucjMA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas J. Cotton, Esq.
SCHENK, PRICE, SMITH & KING, LLP
220 Park Avenue
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0991
Telephone: (973) 539-1000
E-mail: tjc@spsk.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Cert Bid Reply Brief Extended to May 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THURSTON v. PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00375 (D.
Maine, Filed Nov. 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nancy Torresen entered
an order on motion to extending the time for Plaintiff's Reply
Brief in support of Motion for Class Certification to May 31,
2024.
The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance.
Progressive offers insurance by phone, online and through
independent agents.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Watson's Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA WATSON,
individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly
situated, V. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:22-cv-00203-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny Reeves
entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiff Watson's motion to seal Exhibits 14, 15,
16, 17 and portions of the reply in support of the motion for
class certification; and
-- granting the Third Party Subpoena Respondents' motion for leave
to
Seal.
The Plaintiff Melissa Watson has filed a motion to seal certain
exhibits and portions of her reply to Defendant Progressive Direct
Insurance Company's response in opposition to the motion for class
certification.
Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.
A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated April 26, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w0z4XJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
RAY JONES: Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Bid Response
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL BACK, et al., v.
RAY JONES TRUCKING, INC., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00005-GNS-HBB
(W.D. Ky.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to seal
its response to Motion for Rule 23 class certification.
By this motion, the Defendants seek to maintain the sealed status
as the information contained within the documents reveal testimony
and documents that thirdparty American Consolidated Natural
Resources, Inc. ("ACNR") has designated as confidential pursuant to
the Stipulated Protective Order.
The undersigned moves this Court to allow the Defendants to file
this pleading under seal to be in compliance with the Agreed
Protective Order.
Ray Jones provides trucking or transfer services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VBgf8j at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cynthia L. Effinger, Esq.
Jason R. Hollon, Esq.
MCBRAYER PLLC
500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2400
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 327-5400
E-mail: ceffinger@mcbrayerfirm.com
jhollon@mcbrayerfirm.com
RELAX SERVICES: Go's Bid for Consolidation With Esturas Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the motion to consolidate two
lawsuits: Dana Faye C. Go, Plaintiff v. Relax Services, Inc., Leah
Friedman, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-CV-9007-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.); and
Jo-Ann Heram S. Esturas, Plaintiff v. Relax Services, Inc., Leah
Friedman, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-10169-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.).
By letter motion, Plaintiff Dana Faye C. Go moves to consolidate Go
v. Relax Services, Case No. 23-cv-9007, with Esturas v. Relax
Services, Case No. 23-cv-10169. The Plaintiffs in each action share
counsel. The Defendants, who are also represented by the same
counsel in each action, do not oppose consolidation.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the
Court to consolidate any actions that involve a common question of
law or fact. The Court has broad discretion to determine whether
consolidation is appropriate.
The Court has reviewed the complaints in each action and finds that
they raise nearly identical legal and factual issues. The only
material difference is that Go, Case No. 23-cv-9007, is styled as a
putative class action. Thus, the gravamen of the complaints in each
of the related actions is the same, and the differences do not
outweigh the interests of judicial economy served by
consolidation.
Further, as the Defendants do not oppose consolidation, the Court
finds that consolidation is appropriate.
For these reasons, the Court grants the motion to consolidate. The
Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate Go v. Relax Services,
Case No. 23-cv-9007, with Esturas v. Relax Services, Case No.
23-cv-10169, and to terminate the pending letter motion at ECF No.
26 (Go).
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 11,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/578vpdpz from
PacerMonitor.com.
RELAX SERVICES: S.D. New York Consolidates Go and Esturas Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the motion to consolidate two
lawsuits: Dana Faye C. Go, Plaintiff v. Relax Services, Inc., Leah
Friedman, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-CV-9007-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.); and
Jo-Ann Heram S. Esturas, Plaintiff v. Relax Services, Inc., d/b/a
Glen Island Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-10169-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.).
By letter motion, Plaintiff Dana Faye C. Go moves to consolidate Go
v. Relax Services, Case No. 23-cv-9007, with Esturas v. Relax
Services, Case No. 23-cv-10169. The Plaintiffs in each action share
counsel. The Defendants, who are also represented by the same
counsel in each action, do not oppose consolidation.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the
Court to consolidate any actions that involve a common question of
law or fact. The Court has broad discretion to determine whether
consolidation is appropriate.
The Court has reviewed the complaints in each action and finds that
they raise nearly identical legal and factual issues. The only
material difference is that Go, Case No. 23-cv-9007, is styled as a
putative class action. Thus, the gravamen of the complaints in each
of the related actions is the same, and the differences do not
outweigh the interests of judicial economy served by
consolidation.
Further, as the Defendants do not oppose consolidation, the Court
finds that consolidation is appropriate.
For these reasons, the Court grants the motion to consolidate. The
Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate Go v. Relax Services,
Case No. 23-cv-9007, with Esturas v. Relax Services, Case No.
23-cv-10169, and to terminate the pending letter motion at ECF No.
26 (Go).
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 11,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4frfpzty from
PacerMonitor.com.
SCRIBE MEDIA: Cormier Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALYSSA CORMIER, CLAIRE
BRUDNER, MARIANNA ACOSTA, and ESTY PITTMAN, v. SCRIBE MEDIA, LLC,
BOND FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC, ENDURING VENTURES, INC.,
ENDURING CONSULTING GROUP LLC, and ENDURING VENTURES TY PARTNERSHIP
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
-- certifying a class of
"all former Scribe employees throughout the United States who
were
terminated as a result of a 'mass layoff,' as defined by the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act,
without 60 days advance written notice, beginning in May
2023,"
-- appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives,
-- appointing Kaplan Law Firm, PLLC as class counsel, and
-- providing all other relief that this Court sees fit.
n May 24, 2023, Scribe terminated approximately 90 employees, who
were at least 33 percent of the Defendants' workforce. Scribe
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and putative class members any wages
as a result of this mass layoff.
On the day of their termination, Scribe issued a WARN notice to the
laid off employees that the "unforeseen business circumstances" and
"faltering business" exceptions to the WARN Act applied and led to
the "plant closure" of Scribe's Austin headquarters. Scribe used
these exceptions to not pay the Plaintiffs and the putative class
members what the WARN Act required.
Despite the content of the WARN notice, Scribe has continued to
operate its Austin headquarters since the May 24 layoff.
Scribe is a book publishing company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSniHK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Caitlin Boehne, Esq.
Ryan O. Estes, Esq.
Austin Kaplan, Esq.
J. Bryan Wood, Esq.
KAPLAN LAW FIRM
2901 Bee Cave Rd., Suite G
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 814-7348
E-mail: cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com
restes@kaplanlawatx.com
akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com
bwood@kaplanlawatx.com
SHAWN EMMONS: Revised Contempt Order Entered in Daughtry Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO DAUGHTRY, et al.,
v. SHAWN EMMONS, TYRONE OLIVER, AHMED HOLT, STAN SHEPARD, JOE
WILLIAMS, DENNIS TURNER, and FLEMISTER WILEY, Case No.
5:15-cv-00041-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell
entered revised contempt order as follows:
-- The Court will appoint an independent monitor, at the
defendants’
expense, to assist the defendants in achieving compliance. The
defendants have made clear that they cannot monitor compliance
internally. The parties shall confer and propose by May 4,
2024, a
candidate to serve as independent monitor.
-- The term of the settlement agreement, the addendum agreement,
and
the Court's injunction are extended. That term shall expire six
months after the appointment of the independent monitor.
-- Because of the defendants' longstanding and flagrant violations
of
the Court's injunction, the Court finds that coercive sanctions
are necessary to compel compliance.
Paccar is an American company primarily focused on the design and
manufacturing of large commercial trucks.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fl9f9G at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO and
SELINA CASHIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 5, 2024, will move the Court
for an order under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure certifying the classes, and appointing the class
representatives and class counsel.
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following
classes and subclasses:
The "(b)(2) Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class"
"All Southwest flight attendants based in the United States
since
March 1, 2019 to present who exercised their rights to family
and
medical leave and consequently lost access to disciplinary
points
reduction. "
The "(b)(2) California Subclass"
"All Southwest flight attendants based in California since
March
1, 2019 to present who exercised their rights to family and
medical leave and consequently lost access to disciplinary
points
reduction. "
The "(b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class"
"All Southwest flight attendants based in the United States
since
March 1, 2019 to present who exercised their rights to family
and
medical leave and consequently lost access to a disciplinary
points reduction and were subsequently terminated for an
accumulation of disciplinary points."
The "(b)(3) California Subclass"
"All Southwest flight attendants based in California since
March
1, 2019 to present who exercised their rights to family and
medical leave and consequently lost access to a disciplinary
points reduction and were subsequently terminated for an
accumulation of disciplinary points."
The Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Plaintiff Cashin as the
class representative for the (b)(2) Nationwide Injunctive Relief
Class and the (b)(2) California Subclass; and appointment of
Plaintiff Refuerzo as the class representative of the (b)(3)
Nationwide Damages Class and the (b)(3) California Subclass.
This class action was filed by Plaintiff Cashin and Plaintiff
Refuerzo on behalf of themselves and other flight attendants who
were penalized by Southwest for taking leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and/or the California Family Rights Act
("CFRA"). This penalty operates by barring flight attendants who
take FMLA leave from having access to disciplinary point
reductions.
On March 1, 2019, Southwest unilaterally implemented a change to
the way it treats its flight attendants' use of intermittent FMLA
leave. Going forward from that date, Southwest decreed that
intermittent FMLA leave would disqualify a flight attendant from a
procedure known as "record improvement" when they exercised their
statutory right to FMLA leave.
Southwest is a major airline in the United States that operates on
a low-cost carrier mode.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nK7gZN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Erlich, Esq.
ERLICH LAW FIRM, P.C.
180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380
Oakland CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 390-9140
Facsimile: (510) 369-3876
E-mail: jason@erlichlawfirm.com
- and -
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Discovery in Teva Securities Begins Jan. 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated lawsuit captioned IN RE TEVA SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-01681-SRU (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R.
Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut rules that the discovery period for transactional data
in Teva securities will begin on Jan. 1, 2013.
This order/document relates to: Case No. 3:18-cv-01681 (SRU), Case
No. 3:18-cv-01956 (SRU), Case No. 3:19-cv-00192 (SRU), Case No.
3:18-cv-01721 (SRU), Case No. 3:19-cv-00449 (SRU), Case No.
3:19-cv-00513 (SRU), Case No. 3:19-cv-00543 (SRU), Case No.
3:19-cv-00603 (SRU), Case No. 3:19-cv-00655 (SRU), Case No.
3:19-cv-00656 (SRU), Case No. 3:19-cv-00923 (SRU), Case No.
3:19-cv-01167 (SRU), Case No. 3:20-cv-01630 (SRU), Case No.
3:19-cv-01173 (SRU), Case No. 3:20-cv-00083 (SRU), Case No.
3:21-cv-01188 (SRU), and Case No. 3:22-cv-00106 (SRU).
On Nov. 9, 2023, the Court conducted a telephonic status conference
to discuss several discovery disputes between the Plaintiff groups
and the Defendants, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
One issue Judge Underhill was unable to resolve with the parties
was the appropriate time period for discovery.
The Defendants argued the discoverable time period should begin on
Jan. 1, 2013, because the Plaintiffs in the related class action
alleged the Defendants' fraud began on that date. The Plaintiff
groups must offset their losses from the securities fraud with
gains during the period of the securities fraud.
The Plaintiffs argue the relevant time period for discovery should
begin at different points for each Plaintiff's group. The
Plaintiffs proposed to limit discovery to the period of alleged
fraud claimed in each complaint, with a "90-day lookback
window[.]"
The Court ordered the Plaintiffs and the Defendants "to submit
simultaneous briefing regarding the appropriate time period for
discovery."
Judge Underhill concludes that the appropriate period for full
discovery differs from the appropriate period for discovery
regarding transactional data in Teva securities. The full discovery
period will begin ninety days before each Plaintiff group's claimed
period of fraudulent activity. The discovery period for
transactional data in Teva securities will begin on Jan. 1, 2013.
The Plaintiff groups allege different start dates of Teva's
fraudulent activity. Those start dates differ from the start of the
class action period. Even though the Plaintiff groups chose not to
join the class action, Judge Underhill says they must disclose
transactional data sufficient for Teva to determine if they
profited (or incurred a loss) from Teva securities during the class
period.
Judge Underhill limits the full discovery period, however, to the
start of the claimed fraudulent activity alleged in each Plaintiff
group's complaint, with a ninety-day lookback period. If the Court
were to set the full discovery period from Jan. 1, 2013, its
decision could inflate some groups' discovery by "an additional
year's worth (and, in some cases, multiple years' worth) of
documents" and increase the Plaintiffs' document production by
hundreds of thousands of hit counts.
The Court directs the parties to meet and confer within twenty-one
days regarding a revised scheduling order to govern completion of
discovery in these cases, and to determine if the parties can
resolve any remaining discovery disputes. If the parties cannot
reach a resolution, they will schedule a telephonic discovery
conference with the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4khmmm7j from PacerMonitor.com.
WALMART INC: Parties Seeks to Amend Class Cert Filing in Gagetta
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN GAGETTA and TRACIE
GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. WALMART INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03757-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the March 1, 2024
Order setting the remaining deadlines as follows:
Event Original Date Proposed
Date
Plaintiffs' motion for class May 13, 2024 July 12, 2024
Certification and Expert
Reports Due:
Defendant's opposition to July 9, 2024 Sept. 9, 2024
motion for class certification,
expert reports and Daubert
motions due:
Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply, Aug. 13, 2024 Oct. 14, 2024
Daubert Opposition and
Daubert Motions Due:
Defendant's Daubert Reply Aug. 27, 2024 Oct. 28, 2024
and opposition to Daubert
motions due:
Plaintiffs' Daubert reply due: Sept. 10, 2024 Nov. 11,
2024
Close of Fact Discovery: Sept. 20, 2024 Nov. 19,
2024
Hearing on Motion for class Oct. 24, 2024 Dec. 19, 2024
certification and Daubert
motions
Walmart operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department
stores, and grocery stores.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q4ePz3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: 9925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De León Suite 205, No.10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 460
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 640-1168
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (833) 346-3587
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
eservice@4-justice.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
Michael Liskow, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
E-mail: dgeorge@4-justice.com
bbrown@4-justice.com
eservice@4-justice.com
jpollack@4-justice.com
mliskow@4-justice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
Rose J. Hunter jones, Esq.
Michael L. Resch, Esq.
Ethan P. Davis, Esq.
Samuel R. Diamant, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 318-1200
Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
rjones@kslaw.com
mresch@kslaw.com
edavis@kslaw.com
sdiamant@kslaw.com
WHITESTONE HOME: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Robertson Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas Harpool of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
lawsuit captioned GINGER ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITESTONE HOME
FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a Saatva, Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-03184-MDH (W.D. Mo.).
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Class
Action Complaint arguing the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the
Missouri tax refund procedure and fails to state a claim.
The Plaintiff's claims stem for the purchase of a mattress from
Defendant Whitestone Home Furnishings, LLC (or "Saatva"). The
Plaintiff alleges the Defendant misrepresented, and then
subsequently overcharged, the amount of tax owed on the
transaction.
Saatva is an online retailer of mattresses, headquartered in
Whitestone, New York.
The Plaintiff ordered a king-size mattress from Saatva's website.
The mattress was delivered to her home in Springfield, Missouri.
She asserts that Saatva misrepresented the amount of tax owed and
erroneously overcharged tax monies on her mattress order. She
contends that the tax rate applicable to her order was 4.225% and
that Saatva collected tax on behalf of the MDOR at a higher rate.
She claims she paid $74.40 more than she owed in taxes based on the
Defendant's actions.
The Plaintiff brings five claims against Saatva: Count 1: Deceptive
Acts or Practices, New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 349; Count II:
Violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (In the
alternative to Count I); Count III: Unjust Enrichment; Count IV:
Money Had and Received; and Count V: Negligence.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims, arguing that
the Missouri Tax Refund Procedure is the Plaintiff's exclusive
remedy, that the FAC fails to state a claim under either Section
349 or the MMPA, and that the Plaintiff's equitable and negligence
claims also fail.
The Defendant argues that the FAC should be dismissed because an
exclusive administrative remedy exists for Missouri consumers to
redress alleged erroneously or illegally collected sales or use
taxes. The Defendant relies on Friend v. Cellco P'ship, 525 S.W.3d
149, 154 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) arguing that Missouri law is clear
that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by this Missouri statute.
However, Judge Harpool opines, the court in Femmer v. Sephora USA,
Inc., No. 4:20 CV 676 JMB, 2021 WL 735685, at *9 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 25,
2021) discussed that the application of the statute in Friend v.
Cellco P'ship specifically applied "special rules" for tax claims
against telecommunications providers. In Femmer the defendant was a
retailer, and not a telecommunication provider, and the court found
the analysis was inapplicable.
Here, Judge Harpool points out, the facts alleged in this case are
similar to Femmer in which the plaintiff alleged the defendant
engaged in a practice of applying a charge for miscalculated taxes.
The remedy sought by the Plaintiff is not a tax refund but damages
for the practice that is alleged to be unlawful, unfair, unethical,
and profitable to the Defendant.
As a result, the Court finds the reasoning in Femmer is applicable
here. The Plaintiff is not seeking a tax refund but is alleging
damages based on the Defendant's unlawful conduct. In addition, as
set forth by the Plaintiff, even if Section 144.190 applied to her
claims, which the Court does not find, courts have also found that
the statute is not an exclusive remedy when the defendant is a
retailer.
For all these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss based on Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 144.190.4.
The Defendant also moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's MMPA claim for
failure to state a claim. Under the MMPA, an unlawful practice must
occur in connection with the sale or advertisement of any
merchandise in trade or commerce.
Here, the Plaintiff alleges that in order to purchase the mattress,
she had to pay the tax. She further alleges that the Defendant
misrepresented the tax amount and charged and collected more tax
money than was due as a part of the sale of the mattress. Further,
she alleges she relied on the Defendant regarding the correct
amount of tax that was due on the transaction and that the
Defendant's misrepresentation would mislead a reasonable consumer.
The Court finds this is enough to state a claim under the MMPA. The
Defendant's arguments based on what the Plaintiff can or cannot
establish are premature, Judge Harpool explains.
Whether the Plaintiff may ultimately prevail is not the issue
before the Court. Rather, the Court finds the Plaintiff has pled
enough to state a claim under the MMPA to survive a motion to
dismiss.
Additionally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim under GBL Section 349 for four reasons: 1) that the
allegedly deceptive conduct occurred outside of New York; 2) that
the collection of taxes is not consumer-oriented conduct; 3) that
the Plaintiff has failed to allege a deceptive act or practice; and
4) that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the voluntary payment
doctrine.
For the same reasons discussed, Judge Harpool says the Plaintiff's
claims are not claims for a tax-refund. Rather, the Plaintiff is
seeking damages related to the Defendant's alleged practice of
overcharging consumers. Similarly, the Plaintiff alleges the
Defendant's actions are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer and
that she relied on the Defendant's conduct.
The Court finds for purposes of analyzing the motion to dismiss,
that the Plaintiff has stated a claim. The Defendant's arguments
regarding whether the Plaintiff can ultimately prove her claims or
whether certain arguments may prevent her from prevailing on her
claims are better suited after evidence is presented. Hence, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the negligence claim, arguing it did
not owe the Plaintiff a duty and the economic loss doctrine bars
her claim. To state a negligence claim, the Plaintiff must plead
that the Defendant owed a duty to her.
Judge Harpool notes that whether the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a
duty is purely a question of law.
Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant owed her a duty to
exercise reasonable care to determine, represent, charge, and
collect the correct amount of tax on sales of products through
remote sales channels that were delivered from an out-of-state
facility. In response, the Defendant argues it owed a duty to the
State, not the Plaintiff, with regard to the calculation,
collection and remittance of taxes. Further, the Defendant argues
the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
Here, the record has not yet been developed and the Court is
analyzing the Defendant's arguments in light of what the Plaintiff
has alleged for purposes of the motion to dismiss. Here, the
Plaintiff has alleged a claim for negligence. For these reasons,
the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
negligence claim.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's equitable claims for
unjust enrichment (Count III) and money had and received (Count IV)
for failure to state a claim as a matter of law. The Plaintiff's
claims require allegations that the Defendant unjustly retained a
benefit conferred by her.
The Defendant argues the Plaintiff does not allege that it retained
any conferred benefit; that she has an adequate statutory remedy
available; that her equitable claims are duplicative of her
consumer fraud claims; and that her claims are barred by Missouri's
voluntary payment doctrine.
Again, for the same reasons discussed throughout this Order, Judge
Harpool finds the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged equitable
claims. The Defendant's arguments are premature and whether the
Plaintiff may ultimately prevail based on the discovery of evidence
is yet to be determined.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 15, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2r7e7faa from PacerMonitor.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 ***