/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***