/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240612.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 118
Headlines
ACADIA HEALTH: Limited Scheduling Order Entered in Jolla Class Suit
ALASKA AIRLINES: Krueger Suit Remanded to Washington Super. Court
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply
ALTRU HEALTH: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
AMAZON.COM INC: Heinz Sues Over Consumer Privacy Breaches
AMERICAN SUGAR: JM Hospitality Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 11
ANDY MEISNER: Court Stays Briefing on Hold Motion to Certify Class
ASR GROUP: Kurtz Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price-Fixing Conspiracy
BIG FISH: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Campos Suit
BIOGEN INC: Gray Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Hamby Sues Over Securities Law Violations
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Khan With Smith Suit
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Smith With Khan Suit
CROCS INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Docs
CROCS INC: Valentine Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class, Subclass
CROWN ENERGY: Johnson Sues Over Labor Law Violations
DAIRYLAND USA: Fact Discovery in Orbetta Due August 23
DELTA AIR LINES: Fudge Suit Removed to C.D. California
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 15
DOCUSIGN INC: Continues to Defend Weston Class Suit in California
EIGHT ORANGES: Ct. Certifies Class of Restaurant Staff in Mangahas
ENERGY TRANSFER: July 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
EQUIFAX INFO: Class Settlement in Meeks Suit Gets Final Nod
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10M Atty's Fees Awarded Lacy's Counsel
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10M Atty's Fees Awared to Whitney's Counsel
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Bishop Counsel
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Brown's Counsel
FARADAY FUTURE: Settles Securities Suit
FCA US: Bid to Transfer Biederman Suit to E.D. Michigan Denied
FCA US: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Hocker Suit to E.D. Michigan
FOCUS STAFF: Court Stays Discovery in Wright Until August 1
FORZSA LLC: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
FR8 SOLUTIONS: Husidic et al. Sue Over RICO Violations
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Salazar Suit Seeks to Certify Worker Class
FUNKO INC: W.D. Washington Dismisses Studen Securities Fraud Suit
GAMESTOP CORP: Odle Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
GENERAL DYNAMICS: O'Neill Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Bylaw
GLJ TWO LLC: Raum Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GOOGLE LLC: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Smith Class Suit
GRAND CANYON: $25.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 22
GXO LOGISTICS: Jones Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Ramirez Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
IDEAL CONCEPTS: Mitchell Sues Over Use of Automated Calls
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
INSURED FOR LIFE: Schwartz Allowed Leave to Take Discovery
INTERNET BRANDS: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California
ISTOCKPHOTO LP: Krayzman Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info to FB
J-M MANUFACTURING: Seeks Leave to File Surreply in Cambridge Suit
JAMIN LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Liz Suit Claims
KRIGER LAW: Court Allows 2nd Distribution of Funds in Almada Suit
LASERAWAY MEDICAL: Liu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
LEO CHULIYA: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Wang Class Suit
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
LIFE PROTECT 24/7 INC: Childers Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
LOANCARE LLC: Rangel Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California
LZ LOGISTICS: Parties in Amsden Seek to Amend May 15 Order
MDL 3032: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel
MERRICK GARLAND: Fact Discovery in Figueroa Due August 29
MILLENNIA TAX: McCoy Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Class Cert Bids Filing Due Sept. 30
NEURAXIS INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Bhambhani Suit
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Court Holds Class Certification Bid in Abeyance
NUMRICH GUN: Court Approves Settlement in Koeller Class Suit
PACIFIC MARKET: Brown Suit Consolidated in Stanley Tumbler Case
PACIFIC MARKET: Interim Class Counsel Appointed in Franzetti Suit
PACIFIC MARKET: W.D. Washington Administratively Closes Brown Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiffs Must Respond to Transfer Bid by June 19
PERRY JOHNSON: Valencia Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
PREMIUM VELOCITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Must File Supplemental Briefing in Angulo Suit
PUBLIC HOSPITAL: Starks Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
RECOLOGY INC: Villarroel Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
REDWOOD MALL: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
RENOVACARE INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
RIVER HOUSE: Faces Gaspa Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ROSENBLUM FAMILY: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Bid for Equitable Relief in Hartman Denied
STAKE CENTER: Court Denies Loonsfoot's Bid to Dismiss Complaint
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Must Oppose Winter Class Cert Bid by August 30
TAL EDUCATION: Faces Securities Suit in New Jersey
TAL EDUCATION: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
UNITED SUGAR: Kluessendorf Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations
USI INSURANCE: Court Denies Cunningham's Bid to Produce Agreements
VELODYNE LIDAR: $27.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 16
VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal OK'd in Camp Ground
*********
ACADIA HEALTH: Limited Scheduling Order Entered in Jolla Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATRIS JOLLA, ET AL., V.
ACADIA HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01370-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes entered an order granting the joint
motion for leave to enter limited scheduling order.
1. Filing all discovery motions and completing all discovery,
except experts: Feb. 15, 2025.
2. Filing of Motions related to Class Certification:
a. Filing of motion for class certification: Jan. 15, 2025
b. Filing opposition to motion for class certification: Feb.
15,
2025
c. Filing reply to opposition to motion for class
certification:
March 7, 2025
3. Disclosure of identities, resumés and reports of expert
witnesses:
1. Plaintiff(s): Dec. 31, 2024
2. Defendant(s): Jan. 31, 2025
4. Depositions of experts:
1. Plaintiff(s): March 1, 2025
2. Defendant(s): April 1, 2025
5. Filing dispositive motions and Daubert motions: June 15,
2025.
Oppositions to be filed by July 15, 2025.
Acadia is an American provider of behavioral healthcare services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jNPT0J at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALASKA AIRLINES: Krueger Suit Remanded to Washington Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CRYSTAL KRUEGER, an individual on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALASKA
AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01777-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiff's renewed
motion to remand and the parties' stipulated motions to seal.
Plaintiff Crystal Krueger filed a class action complaint in King
County Superior Court against Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc.,
alleging the Defendant's "practices and policies" deny flight
attendants statutorily required meal periods, rest breaks, minimum
wage, and overtime wage pay.
In December 2022, the Defendant removed the lawsuit to federal
court, citing the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff
subsequently moved to remand, arguing, among other things, that the
action falls within the "home state" exception to CAFA
jurisdiction. The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion in March
2023, finding she failed to show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that at least two-thirds of the flight attendants in her
proposed class are Washington citizens--as is required for
application of the "home state" exception.
The Plaintiff renews the motion. But this time, supports her
argument with an expert statistical report purporting to establish,
by a preponderance of evidence, that at least two-thirds of class
members are Washington citizens. The Defendant renews its
opposition to remand.
As an initial matter, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff's renewed
motion to remand is untimely under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The
Court disagrees. Judge Coughenour finds the Plaintiff's renewed
motion to remand based on CAFA's "home state" exception is not
precluded by the 30-day deadline in Section 1447(c).
Because the 30-day deadline is inapplicable, the remaining question
is whether the Plaintiff waived her right to remand. Such a waiver
occurs where a plaintiff (1) fails to file a motion within a
reasonable time or (2) engages in affirmative conduct or
unequivocal assent of a sort which would render it offensive to
fundamental principles of fairness to remand.
Based on the facts of this case, the Court cannot conclude that the
Plaintiff waived her right to remand. The Plaintiff's course of
conduct in this case, in the Court's view, reflects neither an
unreasonable delay in seeking remand nor affirmative conduct
amounting to waiver. Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiff's
renewed motion is timely.
The Plaintiff argues that newly obtained evidence reveals that
CAFA's home state exception applies to this case. For the reasons
described in this Order, the Court agrees.
The Plaintiff submits an expert report examining a list of 2,894
class members and their addresses—information obtained from the
Defendant during the initial discovery exchange. And to evaluate
their likelihood of Washington citizenship, the Plaintiff
identified seven factors ("citizenship factors"): residence, voter
registration, property ownership, place of employment, driver's
license, vehicle registration, and payment of taxes.
The Plaintiff, then, applied these factors using two different sets
of criteria: the "residence-plus-three" test and the "five-or-more"
test. A class member passed the "residence-plus-three" test if they
were a Washington resident and met at least three additional
Washington citizenship factors. A class member passed the
"five-or-more" test if they had evidence of at least five
Washington citizenship factors.
Although the Court agrees that the Plaintiff's analysis contains
imperfections, the Court nevertheless concludes that the Plaintiff
meets her burden of establishing that at least two-thirds of class
members are Washington citizens for several reasons. First, to the
extent the Plaintiff's 100-person sample included flight
attendants, who were not class members at the time of removal, such
inclusion is minimal and does not undermine the Plaintiff's overall
conclusion.
Second, Judge Coughenour opines, the Defendant's other arguments
are similarly undermined by the substantial cushion afforded by the
percentage of class members with last known Washington addresses.
Third, the Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence of class members'
intent to remain, through her application of the citizenship
factors. Fourth, the Defendant's remaining arguments are largely
speculative and impose upon the Plaintiff a higher burden than that
required by law.
Based upon its review of all the evidence put forth, including the
significant cushion provided by class members' Washington mailing
addresses, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has met her
burden of showing that, more likely than not, at least two-thirds
of putative class members are Washington citizens. This triggers
application of CAFA's mandatory home state exception under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(B).
Separately, the parties move to seal exhibits containing personal
identifiable information. While the public has a common law right
to inspect and copy public records, including those from judicial
proceedings, these rights are not absolute. Given the nature of the
information contained in the exhibits at issue, these criteria are
met here, Judge Coughenour holds.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's renewed motion
to remand. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
Finally, the parties' stipulated motions to seal are granted. The
Clerk is directed to remand this case to King County Superior Court
and to maintain Docket Numbers 58, 68, 69, and 70 under seal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/33cjhkex from PacerMonitor.com.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MEINERT as Class
Representative individually and on behalf of those Plaintiffs who
submitted a religious exemption and were fired, NICHOLAS SCHALLUS,
as Class Representative individually and on behalf of those
Plaintiffs who submitted a medical exemption and were fired, v.
Port Authority of Allegheny County d/b/a Pittsburgh Regional
Transit (PAT), Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs file a motion to extend time to file reply in opposition
for class certification:
1. Counsel has agreed that Plaintiffs shall have an extension
until
June 17, 2024, to file a reply in opposition for class
certification.
2. Defendant's counsel has agreed to this extension.
The Defendant provides public transportation throughout Pittsburgh
and Allegheny County.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LPRTU7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Welsh, III, Esq.
WELSH LAW GROUP, LLC
ALTRU HEALTH: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANA R. ROSENKRANZ, JOAN
MONDRY and RAMONA DRISCOLL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ALTRU HEALTH SYSTEM, THE ALTRU HEALTH
SYSTEM RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
3:20-cv-00168-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Granting final approval to the class action settlement in
this
action on the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement,
fully executed on Nov. 17, 2023, and previously filed with
the
Court on Nov. 20, 2023;
2. Certifying the Settlement Class as defined in the Jan. 30,
2024
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement;
3. Appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and the
Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel under FED. R. CIV.
23(g);
4. Finding that the manner in which the Settlement Class was
notified of the Settlement was the best practicable under the
circumstances and adequately informed the Settlement Class
members of the terms of the Settlement, how to lodge an
objection and obtain additional information; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and
proper.
Altru is a nonprofit, integrated health system.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkotE3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Heinz Sues Over Consumer Privacy Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HEINZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00714-RSM
(W.D. Wash., May 22, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Washington Privacy Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
On or around July 2022 through September 2022, Plaintiff Heinz,
using his cellular phone, visited Defendant’s website on
occasions and had conversations with Defendant via the chat feature
on Defendant's website. However, the Defendant failed to inform, or
warn Plaintiff that the conversations may be or will be recorded.
As a result, Plaintiff was unaware that the conversations he made
to Defendant were recorded, says the suit.
Amazon.com, Inc. engages in online retail of a wide range of
products and offers cloud computing services globally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
92 Lenora Street, #179
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
- and -
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
AMERICAN SUGAR: JM Hospitality Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
JM HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING,
INC., ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY, UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A
UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, CARGILL, INC., COMMODITY INFORMATION,
INC., AND RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No.
0:24-cv-01907-JMB-ECW (D. Minn., May 22, 2024) seeks to recover
treble damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief as
appropriate, based on violations of the Sherman Act and various
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Since at least January 1, 2019, Defendants and their
co-conspirators allegedly conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for granulated sugar sold throughout
the United States. In furtherance of this conspiracy, among other
things, the Defendants unlawfully signaled pricing decisions and
exchanged competitively sensitive information about prices,
capacity, sales volume, and demand. As a result of Defendants'
combination and conspiracy, granulated sugar prices in the United
States have been artificially inflated, causing Plaintiff and other
commercial, industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to
suffer overcharges, says the suit.
Headquartered in West Palm Beach, FL, ASR is a global producer and
seller of granulated sugar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
TESKE LAW PLLC
80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 746-1558
E-mail: teske@teskelaw.com
- and -
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
Miles Greaves, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLC
123 Williams St., Suite 1900A
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931-0704
E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
mgreaves@tcllaw.com
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY EFFINGER, et al., v.
ANCIENT ORGANICS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03596-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs Kelly Effinger's and Keefe Stevernu's motion to change
time.
The Court finds the parties' earlier focus on mediation to
constitute good cause in support of the Plaintiffs' request to
extend discovery and class certification briefing deadlines.
The Court, in its discretion, modifies the Scheduling Order as
follows:
-- Class Certification Close of Fact Discovery due by July 10,
2024
(previously April 1, 2024);
-- Class Certification Expert Disclosures due by July 24, 2024
(previously April 15, 2024);
-- Class Certification Expert Rebuttal due by Aug. 7, 2024
(previously April 30, 2024);
-- Class Certification Close of Expert Discovery due by Aug. 28,
2024
(previously May 27, 2024);
-- Class Certification Motion due by Sept. 11, 2024 (previously
June
14, 2024);
-- Opposition due by Oct. 23, 2024 (previously July 30, 2024);
-- Reply due by Nov. 20, 2024 (previously Aug. 23, 2024);
-- Class Certification Motion Hearing set for Jan. 9, 2025.
The parties may seek further extensions seven days in advance of
the applicable deadline only upon showing of good cause. The Court
admonishes the parties to follow the guidance presented by the
Civil Local Rules in future submissions.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vKtVFH at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANDY MEISNER: Court Stays Briefing on Hold Motion to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sinclair v. Meisner, et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-14042 (E.D. Mich., Filed Dec. 26, 2018), the
Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order staying briefing on
hold motion to consolidate cases and motion to certify class and
appointment of class counsel and class representative.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC]
ASR GROUP: Kurtz Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price-Fixing Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STACY KURTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY;
UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED SUGARS
CORPORATION; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03968 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024) seeks
for redress of the injury and damages caused by Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix prices of granulated sugar in the United States
from at least as early as January 1, 2019.
Allegedly, Defendants conspired to fix and artificially inflate the
prices of granulated sugar sold in the United States. To implement
their price-fixing conspiracy, Defendants exchanged detailed,
competitively sensitive, non-public information about Granulated
Sugar prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand. As a
result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff and
Class members paid more for Granulated Sugar than they otherwise
would have and thus suffered antitrust injury and damages, says the
suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and Sections 4 and 16 of
the Clayton Antitrust Act, as well as the antitrust and trade
regulation laws, and common law, of the States of Connecticut,
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District
of Columbia.
ASR Group is a privately held Florida corporation and global
producer and seller of granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach,
FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Peter St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Nicole Veno, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
pstphillip@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
nveno@lowey.com
BIG FISH: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Campos Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle denies the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit entitled NATHAN CAMPOS
and JANET GARVEY, Plaintiffs v. BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington
corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01806-RSM (W.D.
Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on Defendants Big Fish Games,
Inc. and Product Madness, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration or,
in the Alternative, to Dismiss. Plaintiffs Nathan Campos and Janet
Garvey oppose the Motion. The Defendants' request that this Court:
(1) compel Plaintiff Garvey to arbitrate her claims; (2) stay
Plaintiff Campos' claims pending resolution of Plaintiff Garvey's
arbitration; or, in the alternative, dismiss with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' third cause of action related to Plaintiff Garvey's
claims.
The Defendants have also filed a Motion to Stay Discovery as to
Plaintiff Garvey's Claims Pending Ruling on Motion to Compel
Arbitration or Dismiss. Plaintiff Garvey opposes the Motion. For
the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court denies in part and
grants in part the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration or, in
the Alternative, to Dismiss, and denies as moot the Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery.
The Plaintiffs filed their third Amended Complaint on Jan. 11,
2024. They bring this putative class action alleging damages from
being deceived into making in-game purchases of deceptively
marketed in-game items in the mobile application games Big Fish
Casino and Jackpot Magic slots (collectively, "the Games") and lost
those purchases to the Games' unlawful and unfair casino-style
games of chance.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "deceived consumers" by
inundating them with false sales promotions and limited time
bonuses for discounted in-games goods through the use of
"strikethrough pricing and statements like 'SALE!' and '5.5x'
alongside countdown clocks to trick consumers into believing they
were benefiting from limited-time promotions that substantially
increased the value of their in-game purchases." They allege that
these "purported savings were false" because "the stricken
'original' pricing" was not the regular pricing for these goods and
the special offers were not time-limited or true discounts because
"these purported sales run almost perpetually and are only
unavailable for trivial periods of time."
The Plaintiffs raise claims under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act ("WCPA") RCW Chapter 19.86, the Revised Code of
Washington Section 4.24.070, California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), the North
Carolina Deceptive Trade Practice Law, as well as common law claims
for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Big Fish Games, Inc., is a Washington corporation with its
principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. Product
Madness, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in London, England. Product Madness also is registered
in California, with an agent for service in the state, and its
principal place of business is registered as Defendant Big Fish
Games, Inc.'s address in Seattle, Washington.
In 2015, the Kater case was filed in this District, alleging that
the Games were illegal gambling games and bringing user claims for
violations of WCPA RCW 4.24.070 and other statutory and common law
claims. As part of the approved class action settlement, class
members agreed to release all claims, accrued or not, that arise
out of or relate to actions relating to the Games' operations or
the sale of virtual coins or chips, such as claims that the Games
are illegal gambling games and that the coins or chips are "things
of value."
Class members also stipulated that these virtual coins or chips are
not things of value, and members were estopped from this
contention. The settlement also released claims as to Defendant Big
Fish Games and its successors, assigns, and corporate affiliates.
Plaintiff Garvey was a class member in the Kater settlement.
Upon transfer of the Games' operation from Defendant Big Fish Games
to Defendant Product Madness, an in-game pop-up presented to all
active users, which required them to accept updated Terms of
Service to continue play. This was a mandatory pop-up screen with a
button titled "AGREE" that users had to click to continue use, as
well as hyperlinks to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. The
Terms of Service contained a mandatory arbitration clause. Users
could opt out of the arbitration requirement by sending a written
notice to Defendant Product Madness at a specified Delaware address
within thirty days of acceptance of the Terms of Service. The Terms
of Service also included provisions that arbitration and litigation
would be on an individual basis with no class actions or class
arbitrations. These Terms of Service are governed under Delaware
law.
According to the Defendants, Plaintiff Garvey clicked "AGREE" to
the new Terms of Service on Dec. 1, 2023, but the Defendants claim
they never received a written notice of opting out of any of the
terms. Plaintiff Garvey contends that she sent a written opt-out
notice to Defendant Product Madness on Dec. 1, 2023.
The Defendants argue that Plaintiff Garvey must arbitrate her
claims because she agreed to a binding arbitration clause and did
not opt out of this provision. In the alternative, Defendant argues
that Plaintiff's Garvey's third cause of action, seeking recovery
of money lost at gambling in illegal gambling under RCW 4.24.070,
should be dismissed because Plaintiff Garvey is barred by her prior
settlement agreement in Kater.
The Defendants state that they did not receive Plaintiff Garvey's
opt-out letter and argue that the Plaintiff's declaration that she
sent her opt-out letter "is a self-serving declaration" that does
not suffice to satisfy the mailbox rule, and she fails to offer any
other corroborating evidence.
Along with Plaintiff Garvey's statement and photo documentation of
her letter, Plaintiff Garvey further contends that she opted out of
the Defendants' arbitration agreements several times (April 2020,
2021, and 2023), making the December 2023 letter her fourth opt-out
notice and clear evidence that Plaintiff Garvey consistently
exempted herself from any arbitration agreements.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff's three prior opt-out notices
and her notice from counsel in September 2023 together provide
sufficient evidence to satisfy the mailbox rule and her burden to
show that she opted out of the arbitration agreement.
Because the Court does not grant the Defendant's Motion to Compel
the Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims, the Court also denies the
Defendant's request that Plaintiff Campos' claims should be stayed
pending Plaintiff Garvey's arbitration as moot.
The Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff Garvey's third cause
of action and argue that this claim is barred under Plaintiff
Garvey's settlement agreement in Kater.
The Court finds that, even viewing all reasonable inferences in a
favorable light to Plaintiff Garvey, this claim should be
dismissed. Plaintiff Garvey's claims under Washington's RCW
4.24.070 allege that the Defendants' online gambling games are
illegal gambling games because they are online games at which
players wager things of value (the chips/coins) and, by an element
of chance, are able to obtain additional entertainment and extend
gameplay.
However, as part of the settlement agreement in Kater, Judge
Martinez points out that Plaintiff Garvey agreed to release any
claims, known or unknown, claimed or unclaimed, accrued or
unaccrued, that the Games are illegal gambling games and that the
virtual chips are "things of value" under Washington or any other
law.
Judge Martinez finds that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is
devoid of sufficient detail for the Court to determine how
Plaintiff Garvey's current claim is different from those in the
Kater settlement or how the Defendants' current game mechanics
violate the settlement's terms that users do not have to wait for
free chips in the ordinary course of events or purchase new chips
to continue playing.
Viewing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, the
Court agrees with the Defendants that this claim should be
dismissed. However, the Plaintiffs will have leave to amend their
Complaint to potentially cure these errors.
The Defendants have also filed a Motion to Stay Discovery as to
Plaintiff Garvey's claims pending resolution of the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration. Because the Court denies the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, the Court denies the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery pending arbitration as now
moot.
Accordingly, the Court orders that:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration or, in the
Alternative, to Dismiss is denied in part and granted in
part. The Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is
denied. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs'
third cause of action is granted without prejudice; and
(2) Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery as to Plaintiff
Garvey's Claims Pending Ruling on Motion to Compel
Arbitration or Dismiss is denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4uv5dv3f from PacerMonitor.com.
BIOGEN INC: Gray Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS ALLEN GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOGEN INC., CHRISTOPHER A.
VIEHBACHER, MICHEL VOUNATSOS, and MICHAEL R. MCDONNELL, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01444-PAB-KAS (D. Colo., May 22, 2024) seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiff Gray brings this federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Biogen securities
between February 3, 2022 and February 13, 2024, both dates
inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Among other things,
Defendants failed to disclose to its public investors that Biogen
had overstated its efforts to enhance its transparency, corporate
governance, and compliance controls and procedures, as well as the
efficacy of those controls and procedures. Moreover, the company
maintained inadequate compliance controls and procedures in
connection with its business operations in foreign countries. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Headquartered in Cambridge, MA, Biogen is a global
biopharmaceutical company that trades its common stock on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BIIB." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Hamby Sues Over Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN HAMBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAMBIUM NETWORKS CORPORATION, ATUL
BHATNAGAR, MORGAN KURK, and ANDREW BRONSTEIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-04240 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2024) asserts claims against
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Plaintiff Hamby brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cambium securities
between May 8, 2023 and January 18, 2024. During the said period,
the Defendants materially misled the investing public, thereby
inflating the price of Cambium's securities, by publicly issuing
false and/or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose
material facts. Defendants failed to disclose that, among other
things, there was a buildup of inventory in the Company's
distribution channels and that the Company and its distributors
were reasonably likely to offer aggressive discounts to reduce the
high channel inventories. According, the price of the Company's
securities significantly declined when the misrepresentations made
to the market have been concealed from the market, and/or the
effects thereof, were revealed, causing investors' losses, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Rolling Meadows, IL, Cambium engages in the
design, development, and manufacture of wireless broadband and
Wi-Fi networking infrastructure solutions. The company's ordinary
shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "CMBM." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
53 w. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1320
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
E-mail: mmiller@millerlaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Khan With Smith Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order consolidating two lawsuits:
FAROOQ KHAN, Plaintiff v. CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00363-PCP (N.D. Cal.); and COLBY
SMITH, Plaintiff v. CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 24-cv-00363-JSC (PCP) (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Farooq Khan and Colby Smith bring separate class action
securities fraud lawsuits against Defendants ChargePoint Holdings,
Inc., ChargePoint's CEO Pasquale Romano, and ChargePoint's CFO Rex
Jackson, alleging that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements to investors, who purchased ChargePoint's securities, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Khan's complaint asserts a class
period from June 1, 2023, to Nov. 16, 2023, while Smith's complaint
asserts a longer class period from Dec. 7, 2021, to Nov. 16, 2023.
Mr. Khan filed his lawsuit on Nov. 29, 2023, and Smith filed his
lawsuit on Jan. 22, 2024. The Khan case was assigned to Judge P.
Casey Pitts and the Smith case was initially assigned to Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley. The two actions have since been related,
and the Smith case was reassigned to Judge Pitts on May 9, 2024.
ChargePoint provides networked solutions for charging electric
vehicles, including a cloud subscription platform and charging
hardware. The Plaintiffs allege that Romano and Jackson made
misleading statements that failed to disclose the company's higher
component costs and supply overruns, which the Defendants
purportedly knew were likely to result in inventory impairment
charges that would adversely impact the company's profitability.
In September 2023, ChargePoint revealed a $28 million inventory
impairment charge for Q2 '24, resulting in an 11% stock price
decline. Thereafter, Jackson allegedly stated in a conference call
that the inventory issue was behind them. But in November 2023,
ChargePoint announced another $42 million inventory impairment
charge for Q3 '24, resulting in a 35% stock price decline.
On Jan. 29, 2024, seven motions were filed to consolidate the Khan
and Smith cases and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel for
the class action lawsuits. Movant Sudhakar Krishnan has since
withdrawn his motion, and movant Randy Slipher has filed a
non-opposition notice, as have movants Gary Naito and MD Nuruddin.
This leaves four competing motions to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel--by movants Shahram and Paulina Afshani ("the
Afshanis"), Gary Schneeweiss, Collin Sekas, and John Pignataro--for
this Court's consideration.
Because the Khan and Smith actions present the same questions of
fact and law, the Court grants the unopposed motions to consolidate
the actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Plaintiffs
Khan and Smith both assert identical causes of action against
identical defendants for the same purported misconduct; namely,
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements during the
class period by failing to disclose inventory impairment charges
material to ChargePoint's profitability.
Judge Pitts notes that the only significant difference between the
two actions is the length of the class period, with the period in
Smith beginning in December 2021 rather than June 2023. But given
the virtually identical Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) securities
fraud claims against ChargePoint and its executives, this
difference alone provides no reason to refrain from consolidating
the cases. The Court will, therefore, consolidate the two actions,
which will proceed under the Khan caption and case number going
forward.
The Court appoints the Afshanis as Lead Plaintiffs. Employing the
net losses approach during the Smith class period, Judge Pitts
finds the Afshanis have the greatest financial interest and are,
therefore, presumably the most adequate plaintiffs. The Afshanis
lost $1,759,765.60, and their counsel is Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.
Judge Pitts finds that the Afshanis can fairly and adequately
represent the class. Judge Pitts opines that the competing movants
have not provided evidence sufficient to overcome the rebuttable
presumption that the Afshanis are the most adequate Plaintiffs
here. The Court will, therefore, designate them as Lead
Plaintiffs.
Having been appointed Lead Plaintiffs, the Afshanis must select and
retain counsel to represent the class. The Afshanis have selected
Hagens Berman, which has significant prior experience representing
plaintiffs in similar class action securities fraud lawsuits.
Because the Afshanis have made a facially "reasonable choice of
counsel" and no other party has suggested that choice is
unreasonable, the Court will defer to the Afshanis' selection of
counsel and appoint Hagens Berman as lead counsel.
For these reasons, the Court consolidates the Khan and Smith
actions and appoints the Afshanis as Lead Plaintiffs and Hagens
Berman as lead counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdycb3f8 from PacerMonitor.com.
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Smith With Khan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order consolidating two lawsuits:
FAROOQ KHAN, Plaintiff v. CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00363-PCP (N.D. Cal.); and COLBY
SMITH, Plaintiff v. CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 24-cv-00363-JSC (PCP) (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Farooq Khan and Colby Smith bring separate class action
securities fraud lawsuits against Defendants ChargePoint Holdings,
Inc., ChargePoint's CEO Pasquale Romano, and ChargePoint's CFO Rex
Jackson, alleging that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements to investors, who purchased ChargePoint's securities, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Khan's complaint asserts a class
period from June 1, 2023, to Nov. 16, 2023, while Smith's complaint
asserts a longer class period from Dec. 7, 2021, to Nov. 16, 2023.
Mr. Khan filed his lawsuit on Nov. 29, 2023, and Smith filed his
lawsuit on Jan. 22, 2024. The Khan case was assigned to Judge P.
Casey Pitts and the Smith case was initially assigned to Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley. The two actions have since been related,
and the Smith case was reassigned to Judge Pitts on May 9, 2024.
ChargePoint provides networked solutions for charging electric
vehicles, including a cloud subscription platform and charging
hardware. The Plaintiffs allege that Romano and Jackson made
misleading statements that failed to disclose the company's higher
component costs and supply overruns, which the Defendants
purportedly knew were likely to result in inventory impairment
charges that would adversely impact the company's profitability.
In September 2023, ChargePoint revealed a $28 million inventory
impairment charge for Q2 '24, resulting in an 11% stock price
decline. Thereafter, Jackson allegedly stated in a conference call
that the inventory issue was behind them. But in November 2023,
ChargePoint announced another $42 million inventory impairment
charge for Q3 '24, resulting in a 35% stock price decline.
On Jan. 29, 2024, seven motions were filed to consolidate the Khan
and Smith cases and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel for
the class action lawsuits. Movant Sudhakar Krishnan has since
withdrawn his motion, and movant Randy Slipher has filed a
non-opposition notice, as have movants Gary Naito and MD Nuruddin.
This leaves four competing motions to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel--by movants Shahram and Paulina Afshani ("the
Afshanis"), Gary Schneeweiss, Collin Sekas, and John Pignataro--for
this Court's consideration.
Because the Khan and Smith actions present the same questions of
fact and law, the Court grants the unopposed motions to consolidate
the actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Plaintiffs
Khan and Smith both assert identical causes of action against
identical defendants for the same purported misconduct; namely,
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements during the
class period by failing to disclose inventory impairment charges
material to ChargePoint's profitability.
Judge Pitts notes that the only significant difference between the
two actions is the length of the class period, with the period in
Smith beginning in December 2021 rather than June 2023. But given
the virtually identical Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) securities
fraud claims against ChargePoint and its executives, this
difference alone provides no reason to refrain from consolidating
the cases. The Court will, therefore, consolidate the two actions,
which will proceed under the Khan caption and case number going
forward.
The Court appoints the Afshanis as Lead Plaintiffs. Employing the
net losses approach during the Smith class period, Judge Pitts
finds the Afshanis have the greatest financial interest and are,
therefore, presumably the most adequate plaintiffs. The Afshanis
lost $1,759,765.60, and their counsel is Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.
Judge Pitts finds that the Afshanis can fairly and adequately
represent the class. Judge Pitts opines that the competing movants
have not provided evidence sufficient to overcome the rebuttable
presumption that the Afshanis are the most adequate Plaintiffs
here. The Court will, therefore, designate them as Lead
Plaintiffs.
Having been appointed Lead Plaintiffs, the Afshanis must select and
retain counsel to represent the class. The Afshanis have selected
Hagens Berman, which has significant prior experience representing
plaintiffs in similar class action securities fraud lawsuits.
Because the Afshanis have made a facially "reasonable choice of
counsel" and no other party has suggested that choice is
unreasonable, the Court will defer to the Afshanis' selection of
counsel and appoint Hagens Berman as lead counsel.
For these reasons, the Court consolidates the Khan and Smith
actions and appoints the Afshanis as Lead Plaintiffs and Hagens
Berman as lead counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfw7fc8 from PacerMonitor.com.
CROCS INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, RUBY
CORNEJO, TIFFANY AVINO, each an individual, on behalf of
themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v.
CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to seal certain portions of the following
documents that have been designated as confidential or highly
confidential –- attorneys' eyes only by the Defendant:
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; supporting exhibits to
the declaration of Kali R. Backer; the declaration of J. Michael
Dennis; the declaration of Colin Weir; and the declaration of
Michael Hickner.
The Plaintiffs make this motion at the request of Defendant
pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7- 11 and 79-5. In accordance with
the local rules, the Defendant will identify the specific portions
of the documents that it seeks to seal, and which remaining
portions can be filed in a redacted public version.
The Defendant will also provide in a separate filing, as provided
by the local rules, the evidentiary basis for its requests to seal
and a proposed order. The Plaintiffs reserve the right to oppose
portions of the Defendant's requests that exceed the scope of the
protective order and applicable law.
Crocs is an American footwear company that manufactures and markets
the Crocs brand of foam footwear.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EcjpqW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Kali R. Backer, Esq.
Patrick J. Branson, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
patrick@gutridesafier.com
CROCS INC: Valentine Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class, Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, RUBY
CORNEJO, TIFFANY AVINO, each an individual, on behalf of
themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v.
CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on Sept. 24, 2024, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify the following classes:
Class:
"All persons who purchased, in the state of California, the
Products from Crocs and its authorized retailers from Nov. 22,
2018 to the present;"
Direct Purchase Subclass:
"All Class Members who purchased the Products directly from
Crocs
(either online or in-person)."
The Class and Subclass will pursue claims against the Defendant on
theories that Defendant's conduct breached an implied warranty of
merchantability, violated the Unfair Competition Law, and was
deceptive, misleading, and/or fraudulent under the CLRA, the
California False Advertising Law, and the common law.
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint Plaintiffs
Ruby Cornejo and Tiffany Avino as class representatives on all
claims for the Class, appoint Plaintiff Tiffany Avino as class
representative for all claims for the Subclass, and appoint Gutride
Safier LLP as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs finally request that the Court order the parties to
meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order
granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified
class.
The Plaintiffs Ruby Cornejo and Tiffany Avino are California
consumers who bought Crocs Shoes that shrank a size or more shortly
after purchase.
Crocs is an American footwear company that manufactures and markets
the Crocs brand of foam footwear.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PM2oKf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Kali R. Backer, Esq.
Patrick J. Branson, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
patrick@gutridesafier.com
CROWN ENERGY: Johnson Sues Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------
TYRONE JAMES JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, Defendant(s), Case No. 24STCV12896 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2024) seeks to recover civil
penalties for the violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Unfair Competition Law by unlawfully reducing their
overhead costs by not paying their employees what they are owed.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 12, 2018
to present. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff
with compliant rest breaks. In addition, Defendants did not pay
premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiff's regular rate of
pay. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate
wage statements, says the suit.
Crown Energy Services, Inc. is a provider of engineering services
in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
dan@frontierlawcenter.com
DAIRYLAND USA: Fact Discovery in Orbetta Due August 23
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mauricio Orbetta, Delroy
Harriot, and Gosnell Butler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Dairyland USA Corporation, The Chef's
Warehouse, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09000-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge John Cronan entered a proposed scheduling order:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Aug. 23,
2024.
-- All expert discovery, including expert depositions, shall be
completed no later than Oct. 11, 2024.
-- Plaintiff's expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of
the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made on or before
Aug.
16, 2024.
-- Defendant's expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of
the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made on or before
Aug.
16, 2024.
-- All discovery must be completed by Oct. 11, 2024.
-- The parties shall submit a joint status letter to the Court no
later than Oct. 18, 2024.
Dairyland wholesales and distributes dairy products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V3Yici at no extra
charge.[CC]
DELTA AIR LINES: Fudge Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eternada Fudge and Reyhaneh Mansoori, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES,
INC., Case No. 24STCV10440 was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on May
31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04531.
The Plaintiffs bring this action based on Delta's alleged
"disclosure of consumers' personal information to Meta Platforms,
Inc. d/b/a Meta ('Facebook' or 'Meta') as a result of their use of
Defendant's website, www.delta.com." They allege that Delta
deployed "a tracking pixel the 'Facebook Tracking Pixel' or 'Pixel'
on Its website to surreptitiously duplicate and send its customers'
personal information to Facebook." On behalf of a putative
nationwide class and California subclass of persons who, within the
applicable limitations period, "provided their personal information
to Delta using www.delta.com in connection with their purchase of
airfare, were registered Facebook users, and had their personal
information shared with Facebook," Plaintiffs assert claims for
breach of contract and for violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory, or
nominal damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, equitable
disgorgement and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real, 10th Floor
5 Palo Alto Square
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Phone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
Email: ehenn@cov.com
kcahoy@cov.com
- and -
Matthew Q. Verdin, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Phone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
Email: mverdin@cov.com
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 15
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of San Antonio Fire
and Police Pension Fund, et al., v. Dentsply Sirona Inc. et al,
Case No. 22-cv- 6339 (AS) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun
Subramanian entered civil case management plan and scheduling
order:
-- Joinder of additional parties must Feb. 6, 2025
be accomplished by:
-- Every party-proponent of a claim June 30, 2025
(including any counterclaim, cross-claim,
or third-party claim) that intends to
offer expert testimony in respect of
such claim must make the disclosures
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by:
-- Every party-opponent of such claim that July 30, 2025
intends to offer expert testimony in
opposition to such claim must make the
disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(2) by:
-- All fact depositions must be completed by: June 6, 2025
-- All expert depositions must be completed by: Aug. 29, 2025
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 15, 2024
certification shall be filed by:
Any opposition(s) to such motion Dec. 20, 2024
shall be filed by:
Any reply shall be filed by: Jan. 31, 2025
Dentsply is an American dental equipment manufacturer and dental
consumables producer.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O0PHRm at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOCUSIGN INC: Continues to Defend Weston Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending April 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 7, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Weston class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
On February 8, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Weston v. Docusign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00824,
naming Docusign and certain of the Company's then-current and
former officers as defendants.
An amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2022.
As amended, the suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and
misleading statements about its business and prospects during the
course of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As amended, the suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers
of its securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022.
The Company's motion to dismiss the case at the pleading stage was
denied by the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2023 and the suit is
now proceeding.
DocuSign is the global leader in the eSignature category offering
products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital
transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling
agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of
devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely.
EIGHT ORANGES: Ct. Certifies Class of Restaurant Staff in Mangahas
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSY MANGAHAS, and
PITCHAYA WOHLFAHRT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. EIGHT ORANGES INC. et al, Case No.
1:22-cv-04150-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an
order:
-- certifying a class consisting of servers, runners, bussers,
bartenders, and barbacks that work or have worked at The Bao or
Uluh after Oct. 5, 2015,
-- appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives,
-- appointing Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as class counsel,
-- authorizing the proposed notice to class members, and
-- denying the motion for an order directing Defendants to produce
a
class list without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 92.
The Court says that he Plaintiffs have met the "not highly
demanding" standard of Rule 23(a)(3) typicality. The Plaintiffs
also have established that they adequately represent the class,
based upon both absence of conflict and assurance of vigorous
prosecution.
The Plaintiffs bring claims that the Defendants violated the
overtime, minimum wage, and tip credit provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the overtime, minimum wage, tip credit,
uniform reimbursement, spread of hours, wage notice, and wage
statement provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Plaintiffs assert that the Restaurants routinely shared
supplies and had the same employment policies, practices, and
procedures for all Tipped Workers. This action was initiated by
complaint filed on May 20, 2022.
On Oct. 18, 2022, the Court decided both the motion of Hong Bao to
dismiss, and the motion of Mangahas for conditional certification
of the case as a collective action.
On Dec. 7, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, along
with a declaration, and memorandum of law, in support of the
motion.
Eight Oranges is the owner and operator of a restaurant serving
Chinese food.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ezBsm at no extra
charge.[CC]
ENERGY TRANSFER: July 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF
BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST
BATON ROUGE, DENVER EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT PLAN, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND
AEROSPACE WORKERS NATIONAL
PENSION FUND, and IOWA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L.
WARREN, THOMAS E. LONG,
MARSHALL MCCREA, and MATTHEW S.
RAMSEY,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:20-cv-00200-GAM
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
To:All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common units of
Energy Transfer LP between February 25, 2017, and November 11,
2019, inclusive.1
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class as defined above.
In the Action, Lead Plaintiffs allege that, during the period from
February 25, 2017, through and including November 11, 2019,
Defendants made materially misleading or false representations
regarding Energy Transfer's construction of a set of pipeline
projects across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the
Mariner East 2 and Mariner East 2X pipelines. Defendants have
denied and continue to deny that they violated the federal
securities laws as alleged by Lead Plaintiffs. Please note:at this
time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery. A
trial date has not yet been set by the Court.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") is currently being mailed to persons who have been
identified as potential Class Members.In addition, you may obtain a
copy of the Notice by downloading it from
www.EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Notice Administrator at:
Energy Transfer Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91415
Seattle, WA 98111
1-844-717-0724
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representatives of Class Counsel:
Jeffrey W. Golan
Chad A. Carder
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
877-386-3304
John Rizio-Hamilton
Adam H. Wierzbowski
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
800-380-8496
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.If you want to remain a member of the
Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings
in Energy Transfer common units.If you are a Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the
proceedings in this Action, including all past, present, and future
orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or
incorrect address, please send the Notice Administrator written
notification of your new address.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court in this Action, however you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than
July 16, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
full printed Notice.
Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
1 Before October 19, 2018, Energy Transfer LP was known as Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P. and its common unit ticker symbol was ETE. On
October 19, 2018, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. changed its name to
Energy Transfer LP and changed its common unit ticker symbol to
ET.
EQUIFAX INFO: Class Settlement in Meeks Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELETTRA MEEKS, JOSEPH
DELACRUZ, STEPHANIE LAGUNA, AMBER LEONARD, and BECKY WITT, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-07727-CRB (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order granting final
approval of class action settlement and certifying settlement
class.
In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court previously certified,
for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class
defined as follows:
"All persons located in the United States identified by Equifax
as
having (i) an account pertaining to a Tribal Loan, which was
furnished to Equifax by Midwest Recovery and/or CACI, reporting
on
their Equifax credit file at any time during the Class Period
and
(ii) had a hard inquiry on their Equifax credit file by a third
party during the Class Period and at a time when such an account
was reporting on their Equifax credit file."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Equifax, any entity
in
which Equifax has a controlling interest, and Equifax’s
officers,
directors, legal representatives, Successors, Subsidiaries, and
assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding
over the Lawsuit and the members of their immediate families and
judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly
opts out of the Settlement Class.
Certification of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class is hereby
reaffirmed as a final Settlement Class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3).
Also, in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court:
-- previously appointed Plaintiffs Meeks, Delacruz, Laguna, and
Leonard as Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement
Class, and hereby reaffirms that appointment, finding, on the
record before it, that Plaintiffs have and continue to
adequately
represent Settlement Class Members.
-- previously appointed the law firms of Consumer Litigation
Associates, P.C., Kelly Guzzo PLC, and Gupta Wessler PLLC as
Class
Counsel for settlement purposes only and hereby reaffirms that
appointment, finding, on the record before it, that Class
Counsel
have and continue to adequately and fairly represent Settlement
Class Members.
-- previously appointed Continental DataLogix, LLC as Settlement
Administrator. The Court confirms its earlier appointment of
Continental DataLogix, LLC, and directs it to continue to carry
out its duties pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, subject to
the jurisdiction and oversight of this Court.
Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ffsoHq at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10M Atty's Fees Awarded Lacy's Counsel
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lacy, et al., v. Family
Dollar, Inc., A North Carolina Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02379
(W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding
ten million dollars in attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars,
which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a
common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is
appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here.
Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they
still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the
reasonableness of rates charged.
As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the
outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs'
counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is
appropriate.
The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested
fees are reasonable.
All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism,
expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated
sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and
have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The
Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor
of approving the fee request.
On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees,
expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of proposed settlement.
Family Dollar is an American variety store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D9QVRA at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10M Atty's Fees Awared to Whitney's Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Whitney v. Family Dollar
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02138 ((W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl
Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in attorneys'
fees.
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars,
which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a
common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is
appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here.
Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they
still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the
reasonableness of rates charged.
As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the
outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs'
counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is
appropriate.
The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested
fees are reasonable.
All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism,
expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated
sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and
have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The
Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor
of approving the fee request.
On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees,
expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of proposed settlement.
Family Dollar is an American variety store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=chUZWY at no extra
charge.[CC
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Bishop Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishop v. Family Dollar,
et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02408 (W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl
Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in attorneys'
fees.
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars,
which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a
common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is
appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here.
Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they
still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the
reasonableness of rates charged.
As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the
outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs'
counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is
appropriate.
The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested
fees are reasonable.
All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism,
expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated
sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and
have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The
Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor
of approving the fee request.
On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees,
expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of proposed settlement.
Family Dollar is an American variety store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bmJ4qF at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Brown's Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Family Dollar
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02374 (W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge
Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in
attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars,
which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a
common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is
appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here.
Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they
still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the
reasonableness of rates charged.
As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the
outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs'
counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is
appropriate.
The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested
fees are reasonable.
All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism,
expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated
sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and
have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The
Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor
of approving the fee request.
On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees,
expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of proposed settlement.
Family Dollar is an American variety store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HifNSO at no extra
charge.[CC]
FARADAY FUTURE: Settles Securities Suit
---------------------------------------
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2024, that in October
2023, the company agreed, in principle, to settle a putative class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
The company denies all allegations but deemed a settlement to be in
its best interest based on the facts and circumstances of the case
and recommendation of a neutral mediator. The settlement agreement
provides for a non-reversionary cash payment of $7.5 million for
the benefit of the settlement class in exchange for the release of
all claims asserted against the company by the lead plaintiffs.
On November 7, 2023, preliminary approval for the settlement was
granted, consequently, the company and plaintiffs will move forward
with the settlement process. On March 18, 2024 a hearing for final
approval of the settlement took place.
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. conducts its operations
through the subsidiaries of FF Intelligent Mobility Global Holdings
Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiaries. The operate a global shared
intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company with a vision to
reformat the automotive industry.
FCA US: Bid to Transfer Biederman Suit to E.D. Michigan Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits captioned FRANK BIEDERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
FCA US LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06640-JSC (N.D.
Cal.). BRIAN HOCKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00611-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley denies the motions to transfer.
In these related actions, seven California residents, who purchased
vehicles from authorized FCA dealerships in California, bring
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
California state law claims on behalf of a putative class. The
Defendants move to transfer the actions to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).
The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' claims is that FCA US, a motor
vehicle manufacturer sometimes referred to as Chrysler, and Cummins
Inc., the manufacturer of the diesel engines for the subject
vehicles, designed, manufactured, and sold 2013-2023 Ram 2500 and
3500 diesel trucks with emission control devices that interfere
with the trucks' emission control systems. These so-called "defeat
devices" were designed to allow the trucks to evade California's
strict emissions standards.
The lawsuits follow a Dec. 21, 2023 announcement by Attorney
General Merrick Garland that the Justice Department had reached an
agreement with Cummins "to settle claims that, over the past
decade, the company unlawfully altered hundreds of thousands of
engines to bypass emissions tests in violation of the Clean Air
Act. As part of the agreement, the Justice Department will require
Cummins to pay $1.675 billion, the largest civil penalty we have
ever secured under the Clean Air Act, and the second largest
environmental penalty ever secured."
The Biederman action was filed four days after this announcement
and the Hocker action a little over a month later. In both actions,
the Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class under
the federal RICO statute, and on behalf of a California class under
several California laws, including the UCL, Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, False Advertising Law, breach of express and implied
warranties under the Song-Beverly Act and California Commercial
Code, and breach of express California Emissions Warranty.
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to relate the
actions and the underlying motions to transfer followed. The
motions to transfer are identical and the Plaintiffs filed a
combined opposition.
Judge Corley notes that all the named Plaintiffs reside in
California, including the majority in this District, and all
purchased the at-issue vehicles in California. Further, all but one
of the Plaintiffs' claims arise under California law and the
Plaintiffs insist California's stringent emissions standards
demonstrate a particular interest in the subject matter of their
claims.
Judge Corley opines that it is only when "the operative facts have
not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the
parties or subject matter, [that the plaintiff's] choice is
entitled to only minimal consideration," citing Lou v. Belzberg,
834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). Neither circumstance is present
here, Judge Corley points out.
That these actions are putative class actions does not weigh
against the Plaintiffs' choice of forum given both cases assert
California classes along with a nationwide class, and again, all
but one of the Plaintiffs' claims arise under California law and
all named Plaintiffs are California residents, Judge Corley
explains. The Plaintiffs' choice of forum here is not "not purely
fortuitous." Accordingly, this factor weighs against transfer.
The Defendants insist Michigan is more convenient because it is
where FCA US is located and is much closer for Cummins, which is
headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. The Defendants also maintain
because the cases are putative class actions, there are likely many
more defense witnesses than the named Plaintiffs.
However, Judge Corley opines, the convenience of a litigant's
employee witnesses is entitled to little weight because they can be
compelled by their employers to testify regardless of venue. The
Defendants have made no such showing here. They did not identify a
single non-party witness and instead contend "it is too soon to
anticipate where non-party witnesses will be located."
Accordingly, Judge Corley holds, among other things, that this
factor weighs against transfer.
Considering the totality of the relevant factors, Judge Corley
finds that the Defendants have not met their burden of showing the
interests of justice and convenience factors on balance weigh in
favor of transferring this action to the Eastern District of
Michigan. So, the actions will remain in the Plaintiffs' chosen
forum.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motions to
transfer the cases to the Eastern District of Michigan. This Order
disposes of Dkt. No. 44 in No. 23-6640 and Dkt. No. 22 in No.
24-611.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58tmhwdu from PacerMonitor.com.
FCA US: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Hocker Suit to E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits captioned FRANK BIEDERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
FCA US LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06640-JSC (N.D.
Cal.). BRIAN HOCKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00611-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley denies the motions to transfer.
In these related actions, seven California residents, who purchased
vehicles from authorized FCA dealerships in California, bring
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
California state law claims on behalf of a putative class. The
Defendants move to transfer the actions to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).
The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' claims is that FCA US, a motor
vehicle manufacturer sometimes referred to as Chrysler, and Cummins
Inc., the manufacturer of the diesel engines for the subject
vehicles, designed, manufactured, and sold 2013-2023 Ram 2500 and
3500 diesel trucks with emission control devices that interfere
with the trucks' emission control systems. These so-called "defeat
devices" were designed to allow the trucks to evade California's
strict emissions standards.
The lawsuits follow a Dec. 21, 2023 announcement by Attorney
General Merrick Garland that the Justice Department had reached an
agreement with Cummins "to settle claims that, over the past
decade, the company unlawfully altered hundreds of thousands of
engines to bypass emissions tests in violation of the Clean Air
Act. As part of the agreement, the Justice Department will require
Cummins to pay $1.675 billion, the largest civil penalty we have
ever secured under the Clean Air Act, and the second largest
environmental penalty ever secured."
The Biederman action was filed four days after this announcement
and the Hocker action a little over a month later. In both actions,
the Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class under
the federal RICO statute and on behalf of a California class under
several California laws, including the UCL, Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, False Advertising Law, breach of express and implied
warranties under the Song-Beverly Act and California Commercial
Code, and breach of express California Emissions Warranty.
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to relate the
actions and the underlying motions to transfer followed. The
motions to transfer are identical and the Plaintiffs filed a
combined opposition.
Judge Corley notes that all the named Plaintiffs reside in
California, including the majority in this District, and all
purchased the at-issue vehicles in California. Further, all but one
of the Plaintiffs' claims arise under California law and the
Plaintiffs insist California's stringent emissions standards
demonstrate a particular interest in the subject matter of their
claims.
Judge Corley opines that it is only when "the operative facts have
not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the
parties or subject matter, [that the plaintiff's] choice is
entitled to only minimal consideration," citing Lou v. Belzberg,
834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). Neither circumstance is present
here, Judge Corley points out.
The fact that these actions are putative class actions does not
weigh against the Plaintiffs' choice of forum given both cases
assert California classes along with a nationwide class, and again,
all but one of the Plaintiffs' claims arise under California law
and all named Plaintiffs are California residents, Judge Corley
explains. The Plaintiffs' choice of forum here is not "not purely
fortuitous." Accordingly, this factor weighs against transfer.
The Defendants insist Michigan is more convenient because it is
where FCA US is located and is much closer for Cummins, which is
headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. The Defendants also maintain
that because the cases are putative class actions, there are likely
many more defense witnesses than the named Plaintiffs.
However, Judge Corley opines, the convenience of a litigant's
employee witnesses is entitled to little weight because they can be
compelled by their employers to testify regardless of venue. The
Defendants have made no such showing here. They did not identify a
single non-party witness and instead contend "it is too soon to
anticipate where non-party witnesses will be located."
Accordingly, Judge Corley holds, among other things, that this
factor weighs against transfer.
Considering the totality of the relevant factors, Judge Corley
finds that the Defendants have not met their burden of showing the
interests of justice and convenience factors on balance weigh in
favor of transferring this action to the Eastern District of
Michigan. So, the actions will remain in the Plaintiffs' chosen
forum.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motions to
transfer the cases to the Eastern District of Michigan. This Order
disposes of Dkt. No. 44 in No. 23-6640 and Dkt. No. 22 in No.
24-611.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3e6xvu from PacerMonitor.com.
FOCUS STAFF: Court Stays Discovery in Wright Until August 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wright v. Focus Staff
Services LP, Case No. 3:23-cv-02025 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 26,
2023), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order regarding
motion to stay discovery:
-- The parties shall report back to the Court regarding the result
of
the settlement conference within three (3) days of completion
of
the settlement conference. Discovery is stayed until August 1,
2024, or until the parties provide the settlement status
report,
whichever occurs first.
-- The briefing and hearing dates for class certification are
rescheduled as follows: (1) motion is due by September 16,
2024;
(2) response is due by October 14, 2024; (3) reply is due by
November 4, 2024; and (4) hearing is set for December 10, 2024
at
2 pm.
The remaining deadlines and dates in the case shall remain
unchanged. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on May 31, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Focus provides employment services.[CC]
FORZSA LLC: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
----------------------------------------------------
Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. FORZSA, LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06548 (D.N.J., May 30,
2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties.
The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of
public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in
violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff
personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and
otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during
his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years
and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has
actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will
continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant.
Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing
threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with
the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not
necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced.
The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA
that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to
the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout
the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain
potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable
limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the
2010 ADA Standards. The Property fails to provide a continuous
accessible route throughout the shopping center. The exterior
accessible route which connects the parking to the tenant spaces
and throughout the shopping center from tenant space to tenant
space is impeded by excessive cross-sloping and abrupt changes in
level. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work
surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his
reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within
Seasons Coal Fired Bistro and Ego Salon Spa, are inaccessible to
Mr. Maurer (and all mobility impaired persons), says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities.
FORZSA, LLC owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in
this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
FR8 SOLUTIONS: Husidic et al. Sue Over RICO Violations
------------------------------------------------------
EDIN HUSIDIC, et al., on behalf of themselves and/or others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FR8 SOLUTIONS, INC., ALEN KAJDIC,
and AZRA BEGOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04253 (N.D. Ill.,
May 22, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to disclose load
price amounts in transactions with third-party brokers to
Plaintiffs in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of a class of
truck drivers working for FR8 allegedly as independent contractors.
They seek relief in connection with a scheme devised by or
otherwise participated in by Defendants, Alen Kajdic and Azra
Begovic, to underpay Plaintiffs for loads Plaintiffs transported
through interstate commerce. Even though Plaintiffs transported
each load for FR8, FR8 did not pay Plaintiffs the full 88% of the
linehaul rate. Instead, at the direction, coordination or otherwise
involvement of Kajdic and Begovic, the Plaintiffs received altered
statements of earnings and deductions and dispatch instructions
sent via wire transmissions and/or the U.S. Mail, reflecting a load
rate substantially lower than the real value, says the suit.
FR8 Solutions is a trucking company in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jay S. Berlin, Esq.
Rain Montero, Esq.
JAFFE & BERLIN, L.LC.
111 W. Washington, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-1550
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Salazar Suit Seeks to Certify Worker Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURA SALAZAR, DAMARIS
VENTURA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. FULFILLMENT AMERICA, INC., JOHN BARRY SR., JOHN BARRY JR., Case
No. 1:23-cv-11625-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Certifying a class consisting of workers who were laid off by
Fulfillment America between Dec. 31, 2022 and Jan. 8, 2023,
who
suffered a loss of employment and/or did not receive full
wages
owed at termination;
2. Appointing named Plaintiffs Aura Salazar and Damaris Ventura
as
class representatives; and
3. Appointing Fair Work, P.C. and Justice at Work, Inc. as class
counsel.
The Plaintiff asserts that certifying this case as a class action
will ensure that the claims proceed for all affected workers and
that employees' rights are vindicated, consistent with the purposes
of the WARN Act and the Wage Act.
The case arises from Defendants' en masse layoff of approximately
100 hourly workers occurring on Dec. 31, 2022.
The Plaintiffs allege that Fulfillment America failed to provide
sufficient notice of a mass layoff in violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), and failed
to pay the workers the required 60 days of pay. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to timely pay workers'
wages in violation of the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act ("Wage
Act").
The Plaintiffs Salazar and Ventura and the class they seek to
represent were hourly employees, employed by the Defendants through
a staffing company named Job Done LLC at their production facility
in Billerica, Massachusetts.
Fulfillment America is a six sigma fulfillment company specialized
in providing fulfillment services, including warehousing, and
inventory management.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WtGRXu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pablo Carrasco, Esq.
Thomas Smith, Esq.
JUSTICE AT WORK, INC.
33 Harrison Ave., Suite 501
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (857) 350-3873
Facsimile: (617) 995-0910
E-mail: pcarrasco@jatwork.org
tsmith@jatwork.org
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq.
FAIR WORK, PC.
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3261
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
oz@fairworklaw.com
www.fairworklaw.com
FUNKO INC: W.D. Washington Dismisses Studen Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit captioned JONATHAN STUDEN, Plaintiff v. FUNKO,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00824-JLR (W.D. Wash.).
Before the Court is Defendants Funko, Inc. ("Funko"), Andrew
Perlmutter, and Jennifer Fall Jung's (Mr. Perlmutter and Ms. Jung
together, the "Executive Defendants," and collectively,
"Defendants") motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead
Plaintiff Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis
(the "Pension Trust") and Named Plaintiff Paul Haddock (together,
"Plaintiffs") oppose the motion.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative securities fraud class action on
behalf of investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Funko Class A common stock between March 3, 2022, through March 1,
2023, inclusive (the "Proposed Class Period"). They allege that,
during the Proposed Class Period, two of Funko's former executive
officers, Mr. Perlmutter (Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")) and Ms.
Jung (Chief Financial Officer ("CFO")), made reckless and
materially false and misleading statements and omissions to
investors concerning Funko's abysmal execution of two highly touted
infrastructure projects and its accumulation of excess and obsolete
inventory.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants' conduct
artificially inflated the price of Funko's Class A stock, and when
the true extent of Funko's floundering business initiatives came to
light, the price of Funko Class A stock significantly dropped,
causing substantial losses to the putative class.
Funko is a publicly-traded company headquartered in Everett,
Washington, that designs, produces, and sells consumer pop culture
products, including vinyl figures, apparel and accessories, board
games, and more, using licensed pop culture content related to
movies, TV shows, video games, musicians and sports teams.
Funko is particularly well-known for its flagship collectible
"FunkoPop!" vinyl figures, which depict stylized pop culture
characters based on licensed content from various media companies
like Disney, Marvel, and HBO, among others.
Funko, Inc. is a holding company that was incorporated in 2017 for
the purpose of completing an initial public offering in connection
with Funko Acquisition Holdings LLC and its subsidiaries. Funko
Acquisition Holdings LLC owns 100% of Funko, LLC, Funko's operating
entity. The Court refers to these entities collectively as "Funko"
for purposes of the instant motion.
Funko has an extensive licensing portfolio that is critical to its
business model. Some Funko products--like Star Wars Classic and
Harry Potter--are not tied to a new or current release and, thus,
do not have a defined duration of market demand. Meanwhile, other
Funko products are intended to "capitalize on the excitement of
fans surrounding the launch of new content" and have a limited
duration of market demand depending on how popular the content
ultimately proves.
During the Proposed Class Period, Funko's licensing agreements
typically granted it rights to use the licensor's intellectual
property for a discrete time period in exchange for guaranteed
minimum royalty payments. The contracts also provided that the
licensors owned the intellectual property rights in the products
Funko designed and sold under the license, such that upon
termination of those licenses, Funko no longer had the right to
sell those products. Funko refers to products that it cannot sell
due to expired licenses or lack of consumer demand as "dead"
inventory.
In general, Funko's business model requires an ability to quickly
design, manufacture and ship products, as well as accurate demand
forecasting and inventory management to achieve optimal financial
outcomes. Otherwise, the accumulation of excess dead inventory can
cause Funko to lose revenue and miss financial targets. In 2019,
Funko was forced to write down $16.8 million in unsellable
inventory that had accumulated in its Washington warehouses,
leading to a stock price drop and subsequent securities fraud
litigation that ultimately settled for $7 million.
In recent years, Funko has invested significantly in upgraded
infrastructure to facilitate the company's impressive growth
trajectory. Two such projects lie at the core of the Plaintiffs'
claims in this case: (1) the upgrade of Funko's enterprise resource
planning ("ERP") software to Oracle, a more sophisticated platform
(the "Oracle Project"); and (2) the relocation and consolidation of
Funko's five Washington warehouses into a single "state-of-the-art"
distribution center ("DC") in Buckeye, Arizona (the "Buckeye
Project").
In 2020, Funko decided to upgrade its ERP software from Microsoft
NAV to Oracle. Funko's ERP system is the central information system
and database that allows Funko to track its inventory and
operations. Launching a new ERP system was a "massive endeavor"
that was "manually intensive," and took longer than anticipated.
As the Plaintiffs explain, in order for Oracle to be effective,
Funko needed to "clean" the Company's existing data so that it
could be transferred to Oracle properly. But Funko's data was a
mess due in large part to a lack of data governance, i.e., the
controls and processes for who creates certain data and how it
should be entered into the system. Other issues hindered progress,
too, including deep rifts among Funko senior leadership, who could
not get "aligned" on critical systems architecture decisions.
Against this backdrop, Funko also endeavored to launch the Buckeye
DC--a brand new 860,000 square foot facility that would house
Funko's retail operations in the United States. Funko signed the
Buckeye lease in September 2021 and began the lease term in April
2022. Funko planned for the Buckeye DC to operate on its new Oracle
platform's warehouse management software ("WMS"), which would
employ analytics and various inventory tracking tools to greatly
enhance the efficiency and productivity of Funko's order
fulfillment and distribution operations.
On March 3, 2022--the first day of the Plaintiffs' Proposed Class
Period--the Defendants touted Funko's "exceptional revenue growth"
in 2021 and offered optimistic revenue projections for 2022,
despite "higher-than-normal" Selling, General and Administrative
("SG&A") expenses due to the Oracle implementation and Buckeye DC
opening during the first half of the year.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs allege it was clear that the Company's
infrastructure projects were nowhere close to being completed (or
their costs accrued) by the deadlines that the Defendants promised.
Indeed, the Buckeye DC was neither fully built nor fully staffed,
and the Oracle WMS was not yet ready for use. Nevertheless, Buckeye
"opened" on April 4, 2022, and new employee training started in
late April.
On May 5, 2022, the Defendants announced Funko's first quarter
financial results. Inventory levels were up 160.8% over the prior
year, which the Defendants explained was due in part to
pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Funko's anticipated
revenue margins remained consistent with the previous quarter,
reflecting "one-time project spend associated with" the Projects.
Despite this sunny forecast, by June, the chaos at the Buckeye
warehouse had only increased. Oracle still had not launched, and
Buckeye still was not fully built out or properly staffed.
On Aug. 4, 2022, the Defendants announced Funko's second quarter
financial results. This included increased SG&A expenses and
inventory levels compared to the same quarter in 2021, reflecting
Project-related costs and receipt of delayed inventory at Buckeye.
Anticipated revenue margins remained steady, though Funko also
expected personnel and related costs to remain elevated through the
end of the year in connection with the final transitions of our
U.S. distribution warehouses, as well as elevated costs related to
ERP implementation, which would be finalized in early 2023.
Following the earnings call on Aug. 4, Funko's Class A share price
declined by $4.88, closing at $21.81 on Aug. 5, 2022.
Back at Buckeye, the situation continued to devolve. By August, the
DC was more than 50 days behind in fulfilling backlogged orders.
The DC was not operating efficiently, with disorganized and
overflowing inventory clogging the warehouse, conveyer belt systems
still under construction, and constant battles between warehouse
departments to use what little equipment was available to reach
product on the top shelves. The lack of order fulfillment
capabilities began impacting forward sales.
On Nov. 3, 2022, Funko announced disappointing third quarter
results, revising its financial guidance for 2022 in stark contrast
to the optimistic projections made on Investor Day. Sales were up,
but SG&A expenses remained elevated and would grow even more in the
fourth quarter, contributing to significantly reduced revenue
margins. SG&A expenses reflected considerable labor costs and costs
related to third-party warehouse storage.
Following the third quarter announcement, one analyst stated it
felt "like we were hit with a bomb." Funko's stock dropped
59%--closing at $7.92 per share on Nov. 4, 2022. On Dec. 5, 2022,
Funko announced leadership changes. Mr. Perlmutter was demoted from
CEO to President, and Ms. Jung stepped down as CFO, effective
immediately.
On March 1, 2023--the last day of the Proposed Class Period--Funko
announced its fourth quarter and year-end results for 2022. Net
income and adjusted revenue margins decreased substantially
compared to the prior year. Funko disclosed the decision to abandon
the Oracle Project entirely, taking a $32.5 million write down of
associated costs. Funko also disclosed its intention to eliminate
and write down between $30 million and $36 million in inventory in
the first half of 2023. Funko's Class A stock price closed at $9.94
per share on March 2, 2023, down from a prior day close of $10.70.
Former Named Plaintiff Jonathan Studen filed the original putative
class action complaint in this matter on June 2, 2023. Mr. Studen
issued notice to the putative class pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). On Aug. 1,
2023, he, the Pension Trust, and Mr. Haddock filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff.
Mr. Studen and Mr. Haddock are individual class members, and the
Pension Trust is a multi-employer defined pension plan with
approximately $1 billion in assets under management, including
Funko Class A stock. The Court granted the Pension Trust's motion
and appointed it as Lead Plaintiff on Aug. 17, 2023.
The Pension Trust timely filed the amended complaint on Oct. 19,
2023, asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.4. In the amended
complaint, the Plaintiffs allege the Executive Defendants were
deeply involved in the Projects; knew, or were at least
deliberately reckless, about the flailing infrastructure
initiatives; and fraudulently concealed the truth from investors.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs identify 28 allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the Defendants throughout the
Proposed Class Period, claiming these statements misled investors
about the extent of the chaos unfolding at Buckeye, the health of
Funko's inventory, the status of the Oracle Project, and Funko's
overall financial outlook. The Defendants timely moved to dismiss
the amended complaint.
Judge Robart finds that the Plaintiffs' challenges to the
Defendants' risk disclosures fail. On the whole, Judge Robart
explains, the Plaintiffs' generalized allegations fail to plausibly
show the Executive Defendants knew that Funko was holding excess
product for a long period of time, writing down excess product, or
discarding excess product--the specific risks that the
inventory-related disclosures warned of.
Judge Robart also finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly
allege falsity as to the ERP-related risk disclosure issued on Aug.
4, 2022. In sum, the Plaintiffs' challenges to the Defendants' risk
disclosures fail. With respect to the revised Aug. 4, 2022 risk
disclosure that expressly informed shareholders of the Oracle
delay, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to plead
falsity.
With respect to the remaining risk disclosures, Judge Robart opines
that the amended complaint lacks particularized allegations showing
the Executive Defendants knew the stated risks had materialized or
were substantially likely to occur when the disclosures were made.
The disclosures are entitled to safe harbor protection under 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-5(c)(1)(b), Judge Robart holds. The Plaintiffs'
claims as to all of the challenged risk disclosures are, therefore,
dismissed.
The Court also finds that 10 more of the challenged statements are
not actionable because they come within the PSLRA safe harbor for
forward-looking statements that are identified as such and
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. These statements are
forward-looking because they concern financial projections or the
plans and objectives for future operations, or because they state
assumptions underlying the same.
Because 10 of the challenged statements are subject to safe harbor
protection under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(i), the Court
dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims as to these statements.
In total, Judge Robart holds, eight challenged statements reflect
opinion and/or puffery and, thus, are not actionable. The Court,
therefore, dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims as to these statements.
In sum, the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege falsity as to any
of the 28 challenged statements, and the complaint is, therefore,
dismissed in its entirety.
Beyond falsity problems, Judge Robart holds, among other things,
that dismissal is warranted for the independent reason that the
Plaintiffs fall short of plausibly alleging scienter. Because the
Plaintiffs have failed to plead an underlying violation of the
federal securities laws, their Section 20(a) claims must be
dismissed.
Because the Plaintiffs could plead facts that cure the deficiencies
identified in this Order, the Court will grant them leave to
amend.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and grants the Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint. The Court orders the parties to file a joint statement
that (1) proposes a schedule for the filing of a second amended
complaint, and any answer to the amended complaint or motion to
dismiss the same, and (2) informs the Court whether the parties
object to amending the caption.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/musrv587 from PacerMonitor.com.
GAMESTOP CORP: Odle Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Odle, Individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. GAMESTOP CORP. d/b/a GAMESTOP,
INC., Case No. 24-LA-0579 was removed from the Circuit Court for
the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on May
31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01417-GCS.
The Complaint alleges that GameStop misled consumers by selling,
marking, or marketing video games as "new" where the video games
have been opened from their original packaging. The Plaintiff
asserts two Counts based on these allegations: Count I for
violating the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("UDTPA"), and Count II for violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"). The Plaintiff
asserts these Counts on behalf of himself and a putative class
defined as "commencing September 9, 2018, all Individuals who
purchased a video game labeled as 'new' by GameStop where the 'new'
video game has already been opened or removed by GameStop or its
agents, employees or contractors or where the manufacturers
original packaging had already been removed from the video
game."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kyle P. Seelbach, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
8001 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1500
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-480-1500
Facsimile: 314-480-1505
Email: kyle.seelbach@huschblackwell.com
GENERAL DYNAMICS: O'Neill Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Bylaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'NEILL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff v.
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 73168378 (Del.
Ch., May 22, 2024) seeks declaratory relief invalidating the
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and
Restated Bylaws, effective October 4, 2023.
According to the complaint, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders'
exclusive right to select the members of the Board. The Plaintiff
asserts that the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement is contrary to
Delaware Code's Title 8 and can interfere with stockholders'
statutory and equitable rights to choose the Company's directors.
Headquartered in Virginia, General Dynamics Corporation is a global
aerospace and defense company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene Lax, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
GLJ TWO LLC: Raum Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Raum, Brennan Aldous, and Nick Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GLJ TWO, LLC d/b/a
United States of Freight, a Florida limited liability company, and
DANIEL O'SULLIVAN, an individual, Case No. 9:24-cv-80686-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 30, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (hereinafter "FLSA").
The Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid at the rate of time and one
half for all their hours worked in excess of 40 per week in
accordance with the FLSA. During Plaintiffs' employment with USF,
Plaintiffs worked approximately 55 to 60 hours per week but were
never compensated at the statutory rate of time and one-half.
Additionally, USF failed to properly apprise Plaintiffs of their
rights under the FLSA. Due to the unlawful acts of USF, Plaintiffs
have suffered damages in the form of unpaid overtime wages. As a
result of USF's disregard of the FLSA, Plaintiffs are entitled to
liquidated damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as freight brokers.
USF is in the freight brokering business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard D. Tuschman, Esq.
RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A.
12555 Orange Drive, 2nd Floor
Davie, FL 33330
Phone: (954) 369-1050
Facsimile: (954) 380-8938
Email: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com
assistant@gtemploymentlawyers.com
- and -
Mark J. Beutler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. BEUTLER, P.A.
9400 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 600
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 305-487-0942
Fax: 786-513-4651
Email: mjb@mjbpa.com
jmm@mjbpa.com
GOOGLE LLC: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Smith Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled MARY L. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-03527-PCP (N.D. Cal.).
In this consolidated putative class action against Google, LLC, the
Plaintiffs bring several state and federal law claims arising from
Google's alleged collection of their financial data through
tracking tools installed on several tax preparation websites.
Google has moved to dismiss these claims and seeks judicial notice
of certain documents. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the
Court holds that Google's requests for judicial notice are granted
and its motion to dismiss is denied.
Google operates a well-known search engine and many other internet
services and products. Google makes most of its money selling ads.
Its advertising tools allow advertisers to target a specific
location, language, and audience. Google also offers tools that
track how users interact with websites. These tools can track
groups of users, who behave similarly or share characteristics like
age or gender. They can also track specific user actions on
websites, like the number of clicks, scrolls, searches, or
downloads.
These tools can link all of the data associated with a single user.
This data can measure how effective ads are and monitor how users
behave. One such tool is Google Analytics. Website owners can
install an "invisible" snippet of code which can measure actions
users take on the site. When a user visits a website with Google
Analytics installed, the tracking code collects pseudonymous
information about how the user interacts with the webpage. By
default, Google Analytics collects information about the user's
browser, language, clicks, downloads, and form interactions, as
well as the titles of webpages, and matches the information it
collects with a user's location, gender, and general interests.
Google also offers a more powerful tracking tool called the Google
Tag. This allows sophisticated web publishers to customize what
data is collected and how it is processed. Data collected by these
tools is sent in real time to Google, which stores the data and
processes it into reports.
According to the complaint, Google benefits from this collection
because it can use the data to power its algorithms and learn about
user habits. The complaint alleges that Google uses this data to
assemble a "detailed dossier" for Google users and other website
visitors.
H&R Block, TaxAct, and TaxSlayer are online tax filing services.
The complaint alleges that H&R Block "transmitted information about
tax filers' fillings to Google" (although it does not allege which
specific tracking tools or products H&R Block used). The complaint
alleges that both TaxAct and TaxSlayer disclosed "adjusted gross
income and refund amounts" to Google. Google purportedly prohibits
Google Analytics customers from "passing any information that could
be used by Google to identify individuals." According to the
complaint, Google has never contacted any of the tax preparation
sites about their sharing potentially sensitive information with
Google, nor has Google suspended or terminated any of these sites'
accounts.
The named Plaintiffs are residents of California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, New York, South Carolina, and Texas, who used TaxAct, H&R
Block, and TaxSlayer to prepare their taxes. Each alleges that the
site they used to file taxes had installed Google's tracking tools.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of people who
used online tax providers like H&R Block, TaxAct, or TaxSlayer that
used Google tracking tools, as well as California, Illinois,
Florida, and Texas subclasses.
The Plaintiffs filed the present consolidated complaint after the
Court consolidated two similar cases. The Plaintiffs assert eight
claims under a variety of state and federal laws on behalf of the
putative nationwide class and state subclasses. Google has moved to
dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and requested judicial
notice of several documents.
Google has requested judicial notice of several documents. Judge
Pitts grants these requests. Among other things, Google sought
judicial notice of the "Google Analytics Terms of Service" posted
on its website, and of two other pages on its website that discuss
Google Analytics.
Google also seeks dismissal of each of the Plaintiffs' claims,
which includes Count I: California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal.
Penal Code Section 631), and Count VII: Illinois Eavesdropping
Statute (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14). Google raises several
challenges to the Plaintiffs' claims.
Because none of those challenges have merit at this stage, Judge
Pitts denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims.
For the reasons set forth in the Order, Judge Pitts grants Google's
requests for judicial notice and denies motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the initial case management
conference is reset for June 27, 2024. The parties will submit a
joint case management statement by June 13, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/39ck7rdv from PacerMonitor.com.
GRAND CANYON: $25.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re Grand Canyon Education, Inc. Securities
Litigation
Civil Action No. 20-639-JLH-CJB
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND
(III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. ("Grand Canyon" or the "Company")
during the period from January 5, 2018 through January 27, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class")1:
Please read this notice carefully. Your rights will be affected by
a class action lawsuit pending in this court.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs Fire and Police Pension
Association of Colorado, Oakland County Employees' Retirement
System, and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary
Association Trust (together, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $25,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims
in the Action.
The Action involves allegations that Grand Canyon and certain of
its senior officers violated federal securities laws. Lead
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Grand Canyon, Grand
Canyon's Chief Executive Officer Brian E. Mueller, and Grand
Canyon's Chief Financial Officer Daniel E. Bachus made material
misrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period about
Grand Canyon's 2018 sale of Grand Canyon University, a for-profit
university it owned and operated, to an entity organized as an
Arizona nonprofit corporation, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that the
executive defendants controlled Grand Canyon when the misstatements
were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Defendants[2] deny all allegations in the Action and deny any
violations of the federal securities laws. Issues and defenses at
issue in the Action included, among others, (i) whether Defendants
made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether
Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind;
(iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members'
losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any.
A hearing will be held on August 22, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Christopher J. Burke of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, in Courtroom 2A of the J. Caleb
Boggs Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 844 North King
Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine: (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement
only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of
the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiffs should be certified as Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should
be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim
Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the
Claims Administrator at: In re Grand Canyon Education, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. 91065,
Seattle, WA 98111; (855) 208-4129;
info@GrandCanyonSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
GrandCanyonSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than
September 19, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive
a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 1, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
August 1, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the
Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Grand Canyon Education, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91065
Seattle, WA 98111
(855) 208-4129
info@GrandCanyonSecuritiesLitigation.com
GrandCanyonSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
Katherine M. Sinderson
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
Jeffrey W. Golan
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
877-386-3304
settlements@barrack.com
By Order of the Court
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), available at
GrandCanyonSecuritiesLitigation.com.
2 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
same meaning as in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated March 25, 2024 ("Stipulation"). The Stipulation can be
viewed and/or obtained at GrandCanyonSecuritiesLitigation.com.
GXO LOGISTICS: Jones Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH JONES, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of GXO LOGISTICS, INC., Plaintiff v. GXO LOGISTICS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024-0542 (Del. Ch., May 22, 2024) seeks
to invalidate the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective August 2, 2021 and
claims that the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement contravenes
Delaware Code's Sections 141(k) and 211.
Allegedly, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the
Company’s board of directors to usurp stockholders’ exclusive
right to select the members of the Board. Additionally, the
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Board to arbitrarily
remove any stockholder-nominated Board member effectively at will.
The threat of such removal deters qualified dissident nominees from
seeking election to the Board, improperly entrenching the incumbent
Board and undermining the stockholder franchise, says the suit.
Headquartered in Connecticut, GXO Logistics, Inc. is a pure-play
contract logistics company that designs, manages, and optimizes
supply chains. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Nathan Abelman, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Ramirez Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Evan Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A
MYSCHOOLBUCKS, Case No. 2024-007421-CA-0 was removed from the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Miami-Dade
County, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 31, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-22091-XXXX.
The Complaint in the State Action asserts one cause of action for
violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
("FCCPA"). The Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of
himself and a putative class of similarly situated
individuals.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Derin B. Dickerson, Esq.
Kaylan M. Meaza, Esq.
William J. Repko III, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 881-7683
Email: derin.dickerson@alston.com
kaylan.meaza@alston.com
jay.repko@alston.com
IDEAL CONCEPTS: Mitchell Sues Over Use of Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
ADREN MITCHELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. IDEAL CONCEPTS, INC. d/b/a INSUREME, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00520-BJD-LLL (M.D. Fla., May 22, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act in connection with
the Defendant's use of automated telemarketing calls.
Plaintiff Mitchell's cellular telephone number been registered with
the National Do Not Call Registry since April 13, 2023. Despite
this, the Plaintiff received a pre-recorded call from the Defendant
on April 2, 2024. In addition, the Plaintiff has never given his
express written consent to Defendant to place telephonic
solicitation calls to his cell phone, says the suit.
Ideal Concepts, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that offers
insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL WILLIAMS and JONN
GIBSON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC d/b/a Insomnia Cookies; SERVE U
BRANDS, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00669-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs
shall move the Court for an Order:
(1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA");
(2) directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
containing first and last name, last known address with
apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
location,
dates of employment of ALL current and former General
Managers
employed at any time from April 23, 2020 to the present
within
21 days of the entry of the order;
(3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any
relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or
social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of
the
putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
and
accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the
Defendants
certifying that the list is complete and from existing
employment records;
(4) authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
(5) authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may
also be published to social media groups;
(6) directing Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in
all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed
locations likely to be seen by all currently employed
members
of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted
throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace;
(7) directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
in
an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
Defendants'
expense by social media and by publication in newspaper
should
Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more
than
20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no
forwarding address to be published in English; and
(8) directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation
on
this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the
Opt-in Period.
Insomnia is a chain of bakeries primarily in the United States that
specializes in delivering warm cookies, baked goods, and ice
cream.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zcYQ09 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 1355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
INSURED FOR LIFE: Schwartz Allowed Leave to Take Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SCHWARTZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INSURED
FOR LIFE, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Jeffery Hopkins entered an order granting Plaintiff's
motion for leave to take discovery.
The Plaintiff may engage in limited discovery reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issues of
class certification and damages.
By June 13, 2024, the Plaintiff shall file a proposed case
management order that sets a timeline for discovery and for filing
any anticipated motions for class certification and default
judgment.
The Plaintiff asserts that good cause exists to permit him to
proceed with discovery in order to establish the propriety of class
certification and damages. Applying the good cause standard, the
Court finds that, without discovery to obtain information relevant
to those issues, the Plaintiff would be unable to litigate its case
to its conclusion.
Given the Defendants failure to appear in this action and the entry
of default against them, the Plaintiff is effectively precluded
from engaging in a Rule 26(f) conference. Good cause therefore
exists to allow early discovery in this case.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WgFlPc at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTERNET BRANDS: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brittany Ramirez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTERNET BRANDS dba WebMD.com, a
California company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV05200 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 31, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-04543.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for violation of
California Penal Code arising from WebMD's alleged installation of
software on its consumer-facing website,
https://www.WebMD.com.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
600 Campus Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Phone: +1 973 549 7000
Facsimile: +1 973 360 9831
Email: paul.rosenthal@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Victor J. Sandoval, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: +1 310 203 4000
Facsimile: +1 310 229 1285
Email: victor.sandoval@faegredrinker.com
ISTOCKPHOTO LP: Krayzman Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info to FB
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LARION KRAYZMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ISTOCKPHOTO, LP., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-03086 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2024), arises from unlawful
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information
about their personal video-viewing habits and activities. Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant has violated the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
Despite its clear legal obligations under the VPPA, Defendant
knowingly discloses its subscribers' personally identifiable
information -- including a record of every video clip they view or
download -- to a third party, Meta Platforms Inc., without
Plaintiff's or other Class Members' consent. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated to recover actual and statutory damages
against iStockPhoto for its unlawful conduct.
Based in Alberta, Canada, iStockPhoto operates a stock video
subscription service by which its user can watch, license, and
download prerecorded videos. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
pblandler@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
J-M MANUFACTURING: Seeks Leave to File Surreply in Cambridge Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, v.
J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. dba J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for ex parte for
(1) leave to file a surreply in further opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion for class certification; and (2) an order advancing the
hearing date on J-M's motion to strike from June 24 to June 20,
2024 (the date of the hearing on J-M's motion for summary judgment
and Daubert motions).
On Jan. 4, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation regarding
the briefing schedule and page limits in connection with
Plaintiff's class certification motion.
On April 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of
its class certification motion. The Plaintiff's reply covers
extensive new ground and relies on three new expert declarations
and reports, with wholly new expert opinions, submitted by its
experts Arnold Rodio, Richard Geoffroy, and Steven Sexton.
These submissions reveal that these experts has been asked to
review new materials, perform new work, and issue new opinions
that—in some instances—change their prior testimony and expand
the factual record in this case. This is wholly improper as part of
a reply brief, as addressed in J-M's motion to strike.
Given the vast amount of new material included in Plaintiff’s
reply brief, there is good cause to grant J-M leave to address
these new developments in a surreply, a copy of which is submitted
as an attachment hereto.
J-M manufactures an array of high grade, high performance plastic
pipes.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PtBQFk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David Bernick, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 389-3201
Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
E-mail: david.bernick@kirkland.com
- and -
Paul S. Chan, Esq.
Thomas V. Reichert, Esq.
Shoshana E. Bannett, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW,
LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
E-mail: pchan@birdmarella.com
treichert@birdmarella.com
sbannett@birdmarella.com
JAMIN LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Liz Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Jamin Leather, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03951
(S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024), arises from Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains access
barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind
persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. It also
requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction.
Based in Myrtle Beach, SC, Jamin Leather, LLC. owns and operates
the website, Shop.jaminleather.com, which provides consumers with
access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to
view and shop a wide range of leather apparel and accessories.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
KRIGER LAW: Court Allows 2nd Distribution of Funds in Almada Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for a Second Distribution
from the Residual Common Fund and Final Approval of Cy Pres
Beneficiaries in the lawsuit entitled JEFFREY A. ALMADA, on behalf
of himself an all others similarly situated class members,
Plaintiff v. KRIGER LAW FIRM, A.P.C., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02109-MMP (S.D. Cal.).
On Nov. 4, 2019, Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Almada filed a putative class
action against Defendant Kriger Law Firm, A.P.C., for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA").
On Jan. 30, 2023, the Court issued an Order Granting Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Judgment, approving the Settlement
between the parties. The Court found the Settlement provided each
of the 260 participating Settlement Class Members would be issued a
check in the amount of $507.11. This number is made up of the
following: 272 Settlement Class Members were identified in the
"Class List" to receive Notice; Notice Packets for only 11
Settlement Class Members were ultimately returned as undeliverable
because an alternate or better address was unattainable after
conducting a skip trace, and there was one valid exclusion.
In approving the Settlement, the Court also ordered should any
funds remain in the Common Fund after the Cash Settlement payments
are distributed, Class Counsel will file a formal motion with the
Court indicating the amount to be distributed and discussing, in
more depth, the proposed cy pres recipients' respective
qualifications to receive such distribution. The Court also
preliminarily approved The National Consumer Law Center and Public
Justice as the proposed cy pres recipients to share any remaining
funds in equal parts.
In support of the current motion, Plaintiff filed a declaration
from Simpluris, Inc., the Settlement Administrator in the action,
regarding the final accounting of the Settlement thus far. Pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Final
Approval Order, Settlement checks in the amount of $507.11 were
mailed to the 260 participating Settlement Class Members. The check
cashing period expired on Sept. 13, 2023, and sixty-five (65)
checks remained uncashed, totaling $32,962.154 in uncashed funds in
the Common Fund.
The Plaintiff now moves for the Court's authorization of a second
distribution from the Common Fund to the 195 Settlement Class
Members, who cashed their initial Settlement checks, which would
result in an additional check in the amount of approximately
$154.90 after deducting $2,756 in administrative costs. The
Plaintiff also seeks authorization for distribution of any
unclaimed funds remaining after the second distribution in equal
parts to two preliminarily approved cy pres recipients, The
National Consumer Law Center ("NCLC") and Public Justice ("PJ").
The Court finds a second distribution is administratively feasible
given the amount of uncashed funds, $32,962.15, remaining in the
Common Fund, which would cover the administrative costs associated
with the second distribution in the amount of $2,756 and, thus,
result in a non-de minimis payment of approximately $154.90. The
Court also agrees the second distribution should be limited to the
195 Settlement Class Members, who cashed their initial Settlement
checks, as it is unlikely those who did not cash their check in the
amount of $507.11 would cash a check for a smaller sum in the
amount of $154.90.
Finally, the Court finds a second distribution not only is
consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement but also
directly benefits class members and is, thus, preferable to a cy
pres distribution under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Plaintiff's motion for a second distribution to
participating Settlement Class Members.
The Plaintiff concurrently moves for an order approving a cy pres
distribution of any funds remaining in the Common Fund after the
second distribution to the preliminary approved cy pres
beneficiaries, NCLC and PJ. The Plaintiff contends a cy pres
distribution is proper because the terms of the Settlement
Agreement provide for a cy pres distribution for any unclaimed
funds or uncashed settlement checks in equal parts to NCLC and PJ,
a third distribution is not economically feasible, and the Court
already preliminarily approved NCLC and PJ as cy pres
beneficiaries.
Assuming a 90% cash checking rate and excluding anticipated
administrative costs for a third distribution, the Plaintiff
alleges a third distribution would likely be no more than $1.95 per
Settlement Class Member.
Judge Pettit opines that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently
established an additional distribution would not be
administratively feasible. As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiff
offers no declaration--from the Settlement Administrator or
otherwise--to support his allegations regarding a third
distribution including the anticipated check cashing rate.
Further, though the Court tends to agree a payment of $1.95 per
Settlement Class Member may be de minimis, if the check cashing
rate for the second distribution is less than the 90% alleged by
the Plaintiff, an additional distribution may be administratively
feasible and non-de minimis, and thus, consistent with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement prior to a cy pres distribution.
Thus, the Court finds the Plaintiff's motion to authorize a cy pres
distribution is premature at this juncture, without having the
benefit of knowing the amount of unclaimed funds, if any, resulting
from the second distribution authorized above.
Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for approval of the cy pres recipients and a cy pres
distribution. Upon completion of the approved second distribution,
the Plaintiff will renew his motion for a cy pres distribution and
final approval of cy pres beneficiaries, if appropriate, with an
accompanying declaration from Simpluris as to the final accounting
of the second distribution.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for a Second Distribution from the
Residual Common Fund and Final Approval of Cy Pres Beneficiaries.
The Court grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for a Second
Distribution from the Residual Common Fund and further orders as
follows:
a. Payment in the amount of $2,756 will be distributed from
the Common Fund to Simpluris, Inc., the Court appointed
third-party Claims Administrator, for the purpose of
administering a second distribution within (7) seven days
of the date of this Order; and
b. A second distribution in equal parts will be made from the
remainder of the Common Fund to the 195 Settlement Class
Members, who cashed their initial Settlement checks, within
forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order.
The Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of cy pres beneficiaries and a cy pres distribution. Upon
completion of the second distribution approved above, the Plaintiff
will file a renewed motion for a cy pres distribution and final
approval of cy pres beneficiaries, if appropriate, with an
accompanying declaration from Simpluris as to the final accounting
of the second distribution.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3j6fxrbv from PacerMonitor.com.
LASERAWAY MEDICAL: Liu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tracey Liu, Angela Neff, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons and
entities v. Laseraway Medical Group Inc., Case No. 24-00002-09213-6
was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 31,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00759 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Laseraway Medical Group Inc. -- https://www.laseraway.com/ -- is a
premier laser hair removal & aesthetic treatments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N. 34th St., Ste. 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Phone: (206) 816-6603
Fax: (206) 319-5450
Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Kathleen M O'Sullivan, Esq.
Thomas J Tobin, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 583-8888
Fax: (206) 583-8500
Email: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
ttobin@perkinscoie.com
LEO CHULIYA: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Wang Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled BIN WANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEO CHULIYA, LTD. d/b/a FANTASY CUISINE, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-02463-NSR (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Bin Wang, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, brings this putative class action against Defendants Leo
Chuliya Ltd., d/b/a Fantasy Cuisine; Dumpling Plus Corp. d/b/a
Dumpling + Noodle; Austin Chu; and Iwen Chen for damages under the
Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 ("Section 7434"). The
Plaintiff asserts a single claim under Section 7434 alleging that
the Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax information forms
with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").
Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
Defendants Chu and Chen are the presidents, chief executive
officers, managing principals, registered agents, and secretaries
of Defendants Leo Chuliya Ltd., d/b/a Fantasy Cuisine and Dumpling
Plus Corp. d/b/a Dumpling + Noodle. Fantasy Cuisine and Dumpling +
Noodle are businesses in New York state.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from Sept. 8, 2019, to
Oct. 3, 2022, to work as a Dim Sum Chef. From January 2020 until
Oct. 22, 2020, which marked the end of the Plaintiff's employment,
the Defendants regularly paid him his wage compensation partially
by check and partially in cash. The payments by check included
withholdings for federal, state and local taxes, whereas the
payments in cash did not.
In 2020, the Defendants filed a Form W-2 on behalf of the Plaintiff
that reflected only the wages that the Plaintiff was paid by check.
The Defendants reported fraudulent information to the IRS in
violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 by filing the Form W-2 with
false information regarding the payments of wages to the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages on behalf of himself,
as well as a putative class of all persons employed by the
Defendants during a six-year limitation period, who were subjected
to the Defendants' purportedly unlawful filing of fraudulent
information returns with the IRS. The Plaintiff filed the instant
action on March 23, 2023.
On Oct. 6, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant Motion. The
Defendants contend that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately
plead the elements of a Section 7434 claim.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
allege the third element—willfulness—and dismisses his claim as
a result.
Here, Judge Roman explains, the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to
adequately plead willfulness on the part of the Defendants. The
Plaintiff only conclusorily alleges that the Defendants willfully
filed fraudulent information returns with respect to payments
purported to be made to him, and that these information returns
falsely stated that taxable income was received by the Plaintiff
and the putative Class in the form of wages and/or tips that were
never actually paid.
Judge Roman points out that the Plaintiff offers no specific facts
from which the Court can conclude that the Defendants engaged in
intentional wrongdoing, or even that the Defendants acted
"purposely, in that they were engaged in a scheme to defraud tax
authorities.
By contrast, Judge Roman opines that the Complaint is silent as to
the Defendants' intent, motive, and the circumstances surrounding
the alleged fraud. As currently drafted, the Complaint, even when
taken as true, fails to establish the Defendants' liability as a
matter of law. The Plaintiff's conclusory statements and naked
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement do not suffice to
show willfulness, Judge Roman holds.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
adequately plead willfulness and dismisses his Section 7434 claim
without prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Plaintiff's sole cause of action pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
Section 7434 is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff is
granted leave to file an Amended Complaint as to any claim that has
not been dismissed with prejudice. If the Plaintiff chooses to do
so, he has until June 6, 2024, to file an Amended Complaint. The
Defendants are, then, directed to answer or otherwise respond by
June 27, 2024.
If the Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within the time
allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, any
claims dismissed without prejudice by this Order will be deemed
dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.
20.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated May 16, 2024,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypwjxrun from
PacerMonitor.com.
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY JENNIFER SCROGGINS,
v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00545-MHL-SLS (E.D. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its motion to file under seal:
Specifically, LNRS FL moves to seal limited portions of LNRS FL's
Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and
attached Exhibits 1A, 1D, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
9. The reasons in support of the Motion to Seal are set forth in
the accompanying memorandum.
Lexisnexis provides full service legal advice.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n4hMUO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie Hoffmeister Smith, Esq.
David N. Anthony, Esq.
Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
Cindy D. Hanson, Esq.
Derek Schwahn, Esq.
Joshua D. Davey, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
1001 Haxall Point, 15th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 697-1448
Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
E-mail: david.anthony@troutman.com
julie.hoffmeister@troutman.com
ron.raether@troutman.com
cindy.hanson@troutman.com
derek.schwahn@troutman.com
joshua.davey@troutman.com
- and -
James F. McCabe, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 243-1000
Facsimile: (415) 477-5710
E-mail: jim.mccabe@alston.com
LIFE PROTECT 24/7 INC: Childers Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Protect 24/7,
Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Bailey Childers, Luqman
Muhammad, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Life Protect 24/7, Inc. d/b/a Life Protect 24/7, Case No.
8:24-cv-01339 (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Life Protect 24/7 -- https://lifeprotect247.com/ -- manufacture and
provides medical monitoring systems to families for emergency
support.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: mike@kazlg.com
LOANCARE LLC: Rangel Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loancare, LLC. The
case is styled as Lexus Rangel, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated consumers v. Loancare, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00642-CDB (E.D. Cal., May 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
LoanCare, LLC -- https://myloancare.com/ -- is a leading national
provider of full service subservicing and interim subservicing to
the mortgage industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Sibilia, Esq.
OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 861
Oceanside, CA 92049
Phone: (760) 666-1151
Fax: (818) 698-0300
Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com
LZ LOGISTICS: Parties in Amsden Seek to Amend May 15 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Amsden, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LZ
Logistics, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-03022-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order:
-- granting the joint motion to amend the Court's May 15, 2024
order;
and
-- adopting the following language as #1on the final page of the
order: "LZ Logistics shall have up to and including 21 calendar
days from the filing of this Amended Order to provide Amsden's
counsels with a list of the names, the last known addresses,
last
known email addresses, and phones number for "all drivers,
machine
operators, and laborers performing services for LZ Logistics,
LLC
from Jan. 23, 2021 to present, who were paid a fixed daily
rate,
who worked more than 40 hours in a work week, and who were not
compensated at one-and-a-half time the regular rate of pay for
all
work performed in excess of forty hours per week."
On May 15, 2024, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
collect action, equitably toll the statute of limitations, and
facilitate notice to potential class members.
The motion sought to certify the following class under the FLSA:
"All drivers, machine operators, and laborers who were
employed
by LZ Logistics, LLC from January 23, 2021 to present, who
were
paid a fixed daily rate for all days worked, who worked more
than
40 hours in a work week, and who were not compensated at
one-and-
one-half time the regular rate of pay for all work performed
in
excess of 40 hours per week."
The Plaintiff had intended this language to read "personnel paid a
fixed daily rate," in accordance with the class definition
provided. The Plaintiff alone bears the fault for the Court's
adoption of this erroneous verbiage.
Counsel for the parties have consulted and have agreed that an
amendment to the order is appropriate to reflect the Plaintiff's
intent and to avoid any confusion.
Counsel for the Defendant expressed additional concern that the use
of the words "employed by" in the class definition was in conflict
with the Defendant's contention that the drivers, machine operators
and laborers working for Defendant LZ Logistics were independent
contractors and not employees.
Plaintiff has no objection to substituting the words "performing
services for" for "employed by" in defining the relevant class.
Lz is an active interstate freight carrier.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rSCOwM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
THE ROWLES EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
1951 Mignon Avenue
Memphis, TN 38107
Telephone: (901) 830-4663
Facsimile: (901) 979-2499
E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Travis A. Elliott, Esq.
Paige J. Parrack, Esq.
ELLIS, ELLIS, HAMMONS & JOHNSON,
P.C.
2808 S. Ingram Mill, Suite A107
Springfield, MO 65804
Telephone: (417) 866-5091
Facsimile: (417) 866-1064
E-mail: telliott@eehjfirm.com
pparrack@eehjfirm.com
MDL 3032: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (Pest
Infestation Litigation MDL 3032), Case No. 2:22-md-03032 (W.D.
Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding ten
million dollars in attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars,
which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a
common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is
appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here.
Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they
still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the
reasonableness of rates charged.
As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the
outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs'
counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is
appropriate.
The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested
fees are reasonable.
All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism,
expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated
sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and
have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The
Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor
of approving the fee request.
On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees,
expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of proposed settlement.
Family Dollar is an American variety store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eYwgUP at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERRICK GARLAND: Fact Discovery in Figueroa Due August 29
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS RAFAEL FIGUEROA, JR.,
v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07849-AMD-MMH
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Henry entered an order granting
the Plaintiff's motion for a 90-day extension of time to complete
discovery.
-- The deadline to complete fact discovery is Aug. 29, 2024, with
a
joint status report certifying the close of fact discovery due
Sept. 3, 2024.
-- All discovery shall be completed by Dec. 3, 2024, with a joint
status report certifying the close of all discovery due by Dec.
9,
2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cRvGQW at no extra
charge.[CC]
MILLENNIA TAX: McCoy Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENT MCCOY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLENNIA TAX RELIEF,
LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00898-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the class defined as:
"All individuals who, in the four (4) years preceding the
filing
date of this Complaint, received one or more pre-recorded calls
to their cellular telephones using the term "business tax
credits"
and the phrase "call 818-237-4185 now.";"
-- appointing the named Plaintiff as Representative of the Class,
and
-- appointing Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski and Wall PLLC
and
the Streett Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.
Representative Plaintiff has likewise established the requirements
of Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), namely that Defendant has acted or
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class,
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole, common
questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to any
other available methods of adjudicating the controversy, the
lawsuit says.
Millennia provides tax resolution, back tax filing and IRS tax debt
relief services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gjCD0c at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL,
LENISKI, and WALL PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 800-6225
E-mail: joey@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
James A. Streett, Esq.
STREETT LAW FIRM
107 West Main
Russellville, AR 72801
Telephone: (479) 968-2030
Facsimile: (479) 968-6253
E-mail: james@streettlaw.com
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Class Cert Bids Filing Due Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOYAN KOLEV, et al., v.
NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107-JHR-EAP
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Pascal entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
-- Pretrial factual discovery, limited to July 30,
2024
the Plaintiff Ruiz's deposition;
documents related to expenses; and
Plaintiffs' damages calculation,
is extended to:
-- All expert reports and expert Aug. 30,
2024
disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs
shall be served upon counsel for
-- All expert reports and expert Sept. 30,
2024
disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Defendants
shall be served upon counsel for
Plaintiffs no later than:
-- Depositions of proposed expert Oct. 30, 2024
witnesses shall be concluded by:
-- Class Certification Motions no later Sept. 30,
2024
than:
National Freight provides logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WHyZ5r at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEURAXIS INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Bhambhani Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RITU BHAMBHANI, M.D.; SUDHIR RAO, M.D., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs -
Appellants v. NEURAXIS, INC., f/k/a Innovative Health Solutions,
Inc.; ACCLIVITY MEDICAL, LLC; DRAGONSLAYER STRATEGIES, LLC; JOY
LONG; RYAN KUHLMAN, Defendants - Appellees, and TERRI ANDERSON;
COLEMAN CERTIFIED MEDICAL BILLING & CONSULTANT, LLC; INNOVATIVE
HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22-1764 (4th Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms
the district court's order granting summary judgment.
The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, at Baltimore, assigned to District Judge
Lydia Kay Griggsby (1:19-cv-00355-LKG). Before QUATTLEBAUM and
HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed
by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Appellants Ritu Bhambhani and Sudhir Rao appeal the district
court's order granting summary judgment to some Defendants,
dismissing the Appellants' third amended complaint, and denying the
Appellants leave to file a fourth amended complaint in their
putative class action suit.
The Appellants contend that the district court erred in finding
that they lacked standing for their claims and abused its
discretion in denying them leave to file a fourth amended
complaint. The Appellees--Neuraxis, Inc., f/k/a/ Innovative Health
Solutions, Inc. ("Neuraxis"), Acclivity Medical, LLC, Ryan Kuhlman,
DragonSlayer Strategies, LLC, and Joy Long--move to dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the district court's
order is not a final, appealable order.
The Appellees assert that the district court's order is not final
because the court granted summary judgment motions filed by only
some of the Defendants but did not unambiguously resolve the
Appellants' claims against the remaining Defendants.
The Panel is unpersuaded. In the order on appeal, the district
court granted the summary judgment motions after concluding that
the Appellants lacked standing to assert any of their claims for
relief--a defect that barred them from seeking relief from any
Defendant, as standing is a threshold, jurisdictional question that
ensures a suit is appropriate for the exercise of the federal
courts' judicial powers. Indeed, because subject matter
jurisdiction goes to the power of the court to adjudicate a claim,
the court's order necessarily dismissed the claims as to all
Defendants.
The district court's order, thus, resolved all claims as to all
parties and ended the litigation on the merits. Therefore, the
Panel holds that it has jurisdiction over the appeal, and it denies
the motions to dismiss.
Next, the Panel reviews the district court's decision granting
summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.
Having considered the record and the parties' arguments, the Panel
discerns no error in the district court's determination that the
Appellants failed to show that they suffered a cognizable injury.
Rather, the Panel concludes that the Appellants' contentions
regarding the risk of future threatened injuries do not satisfy
Article III's requirements, as these harms are "necessarily
conjectural" and not imminently impeding. Therefore, the district
court properly granted summary judgment based on the Appellants'
lack of standing to bring their claims.
Finally, the Panel reviews the district court's denial of the
Appellants' motion for leave to amend the complaint for abuse of
discretion.
The Panel finds that the district court correctly applied Rule
16(b)'s good cause standard in evaluating the Appellants' motion
and properly found that the Appellants had not been diligent in
seeking leave to amend their pleading. Thus, the court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the Appellants' motion.
Accordingly, the Panel denies the Appellees' motions to dismiss the
appeal and affirms the district court's order. The Panel dispenses
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mvfz79wv from PacerMonitor.com.
Ugo Colella -- ucolella@czlaw.com -- in Washington, D.C., John J.
Zefutie, Jr. -- jzefutie@czlaw.com -- COLELLA ZEFUTIE LLC, in
Princeton, New Jersey; John W. Leardi -- jwleardi@buttacilaw.com --
BUTTACI LEARDI & WERNER LLC, in Princeton, New Jersey; Robert A.
Gaumont -- rgaumont@gfrlaw.com -- GORDON FEINBLATT LLC, in
Baltimore, Maryland, for the Appellants.
Jeffrey R. Teeters -- jrteeters@woodlamping.com -- WOOD & LAMPING
LLP, in Cincinnati, Ohio; Richard M. Goldberg --
rmg@shapirosher.com -- SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER, in Baltimore,
Maryland; Marshall N. Perkins -- mperkins@mallonllc.com -- MALLON
LLC, in Baltimore, Maryland; Joy Long, in Greenfield, Indiana, for
the Appellees.
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Court Holds Class Certification Bid in Abeyance
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lorusso, et al., v.
Northwell Health Pension Plan, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02785
(E.D.N.Y., Filed April 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert
entered an order granting motion to hold class certification in
abeyance.
The Court has reviewed Defendants' letter motion to hold
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in Abeyance and
Plaintiffs' Opposition thereto.
In light of the Defendants' anticipated filing of a dispositive
motion which "may dispose of the entire Complaint", the Court
agrees with Defendants that the issue of class certification should
be held in abeyance until the Court first addresses the forthcoming
Dismissal Motion.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
Northwell is a nonprofit integrated healthcare network.[CC]
NUMRICH GUN: Court Approves Settlement in Koeller Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD KOELLER and KEVIN
CHEEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. NUMRICH GUN PARTS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00675-DNH-CFH
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David Hurd entered an order finally
approving settlement as follows:
The Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons who were sent written notification by the
Defendant
that their Private Information was potentially compromised as
a
result of the Data Incident discovered by Defendant in or
around
April 2022."
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the
Defendant, the Related Entities, and their officers and
directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and
validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any
judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; and
(iv)
any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be
guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or
abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident
or
who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge.
Also, the Court grants:
-- the final approval to the appointment of Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives. The Court concludes that Class Representatives
have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and
will continue to do so.
-- the appointment of Raina Borrelli and Alex Phillips of the law
firm Strauss Borrelli PLLC as Class Counsel. The Court
concludes
that Class Counsel has adequately represented the Settlement
Class
and will continue to do so.
Numrich is a supplier of current and obsolete gun parts,
accessories, and military surplus since 1950.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z1dFZM at no extra
charge.[CC]
PACIFIC MARKET: Brown Suit Consolidated in Stanley Tumbler Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, consolidates Brown, et al. v. Pacific
Market International LLC, into the lawsuit titled IN RE: PACIFIC
MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC, STANLEY TUMBLER LITIGATION. Franzetti v.
Pacific Market International LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00191-TL (W.D.
Wash.)
Pursuant to the Court's Order on Motion to Consolidate
("Consolidation Order"), the Court finds the action Brown, et al.
v. Pacific Market International LLC, No. 2:24- cv-00635-TL, is
related to the In Re: Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley
Tumbler Litigation, No. 2:24-cv-00191-TL.
Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to (1) file a
copy of the Consolidation Order on the Brown docket, and (2)
administratively close Brown and note its consolidation with In Re:
Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley Tumbler Litigation.
A text-only copy of the Court's Minute Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3u7yecd4 from PacerMonitor.com.
PACIFIC MARKET: Interim Class Counsel Appointed in Franzetti Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, grants the Motion for Appointment of
Interim Putative Class Counsel in the lawsuit styled IN RE: PACIFIC
MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC, STANLEY TUMBLER LITIGATION. Franzetti v.
Pacific Market International LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00191-TL (W.D.
Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Appointment of
Interim Putative Class Counsel filed on behalf of Plaintiffs
Mariana Franzetti, Robin Krohn, and Laura Barbu.
The Court appoints Alan M. Mansfield (Whatley Kallas LLP), Rebecca
Peterson (Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP), and Ryan McCarl (Rushing
McCarl LLP) as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for all Plaintiffs in the
action (the "Consolidated Action").
The Interim Co-Lead Counsel will assume responsibility for certain
duties during all phases of the Consolidated Action, including
coordinating the work of preparing and presenting all of the
Plaintiffs' claims in the Consolidated Action, and assigning work
responsibilities and monitoring the activities of all the
Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action in a manner to
promote the orderly and efficient conduct of this litigation and to
avoid unnecessary duplication and expense.
The Court appoints as members of the Interim Executive Committee
William Doyle (Doyle APC) , Lori Feldman (George Feldman McDonald,
PLLC), and David Goodwin (Gustafson Gluek PLLC) to work with
Interim Co-Lead Counsel in this Consolidated Action. The Interim
Executive Committee may assist Interim Co-Lead Counsel with
preparing the consolidated class action complaint and any
subsequent amendments to the pleadings as may be necessary or
ordered by the Court, and developing and negotiating relevant
discovery protocols and stipulations or orders, drafting discovery
requests to the Defendant, and managing document review, among
other tasks.
The Court appoints as Interim Liaison Counsel Jason Dennett
(Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC) and Brendan Donckers (Breskin Johnson
& Townsend PLLC) and to act as an intermediary with the Court for
receiving and initiating communications with the Court and the
Clerk of the Court (including receiving orders, notices,
correspondence, and telephone calls) and dispensing the content of
such communications among the Plaintiffs' counsel in the
Consolidated Action.
Any discussions of a settlement of this litigation will be
conducted by Interim Co-Lead Counsel and/or any counsel designated
by Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Judge Lin says this Order applies to all actions included in the
consolidated matters and all subsequently consolidated actions.
Interim Co-Lead or Liaison Counsel must serve a copy of this Order
promptly by overnight delivery service, electronic mail, or other
expeditious electronic means on counsel for the Plaintiffs in each
related action that is filed in, removed or transferred to this
Court that is not yet consolidated in this proceeding as soon as
practicable after counsel become aware of any such action(s).
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2dvtpfza from PacerMonitor.com.
PACIFIC MARKET: W.D. Washington Administratively Closes Brown Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, administratively closes the lawsuit
captioned Brown, et al. v. Pacific Market International LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00635 (W.D. Wash.).
Pursuant to the Court's Order on Motion to Consolidate
("Consolidation Order"), the Court finds the action Brown, et al.
v. Pacific Market International LLC, No. 2:24- cv-00635-TL, is
related to the In Re: Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley
Tumbler Litigation, No. 2:24-cv-00191-TL.
Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to (1) file a
copy of the Consolidation Order on the Brown docket, and (2)
administratively close Brown and note its consolidation with In Re:
Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley Tumbler Litigation.
A text-only copy of the Court's Minute Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6zu9v4t from PacerMonitor.com.
PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiffs Must Respond to Transfer Bid by June 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHALIL HAMMOND, DAVID
THOMPSON, ANTOINE WALKER, MUWSA GREEN, TYRONE LEONARD, MALIKA
HENDERSON, On Their Own Behalf and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
LAUREL HARRY, Secretary of Corrections, GEORGE LITTLE, Former
Secretary of Corrections MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, Executive Deputy
Secretary for Institutional Operations, Pennsylvania Department Of
Corrections and LUCAS MALISHCHAK, Director of Psychology,
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:24-cv-00922-TJS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Savage entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the deadline to respond to
the Defendants' motion to transfer.
The plaintiffs shall file their responses to the motion no later
than June 19, 2024.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is responsible for operating
the state prison system and provides parole supervision of
reentrants.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7DSzU5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PERRY JOHNSON: Valencia Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Valencia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Perry Johnson and Associates,
Inc., Concentra Primary Care of California, Concentra Health
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03909 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 30,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00995-CDS-EJY to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. -- https://www.pjats.com/ --
provides health information technology solutions. The Company
offers medical transcription, coding, billing, recording, digital
dictation system, and court reporting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Belal Ghaleb Hamideh, Esq.
BELAL HAMIDEH LAW PC
111 West Ocean Boulevard Suite 424
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 276-2140
Fax: (562) 309-8100
Email: bh@belalhamidehlaw.com
- and -
Mohamad Saleh Ahmad, Esq.
KERMANI LLP
2719 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 250
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Phone: (424) 253-4254
Fax: (888) 457-7366
Email: ma@kermanillp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Michael Berke, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR LLP
601 South Figueroa, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (310) 621-0542
Email: dberke@cozen.com
- and -
James F Monagle, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (267) 930-1529
Fax: (267) 930-4771
Email: jmonagle@mullen.law
PREMIUM VELOCITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. PREMIUM VELOCITY AUTO, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00901
(M.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
extending the deadline for responding to the Plaintiff's motion to
facilitate notice of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective
Action through and until June 21, 2024.
The Plaintiff filed his Motion to Facilitate Notice of an FLSA
Collective Action on April 16, 2024 on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated.
Premium Velocity offers a wide range of automotive services
including brakes, tires and engine diagnostics.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FMZMBK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
OWEN & BRYANT, Attorneys at Law
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather M. Gwinn, Esq.
Alyssa N. Wright, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
4031 Aspen Grove Drive, Suite 290
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 772-9000
E-mail: hgwinn@grsm.com
awright@grsm.com
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Must File Supplemental Briefing in Angulo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CAROLINE ANGULO, et al., Plaintiffs v.
PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES - WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00915-JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, orders Providence to submit supplemental briefing in
connection with the Plaintiffs' amended motion to remand.
The Plaintiffs are Caroline Angulo, Eric Keller, Eben Nesje, Kirk
Summers, Christine Bash, Raymond Sumerlin Jr., MaryAnn Sumerlin,
Martin Whitney, and Sherryl Whitney. Defendants Providence Health &
Services - Washington, Dr. Jason Dreyer, DO, Jane Doe Dreyer, Dr.
Daniel Elskens, DO, and Jane Doe Elskens oppose the Plaintiffs'
motion.
The Plaintiffs move the Court to remand this matter to King County
Superior Court under the discretionary home-state exception to
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3).
In its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion, Providence argues--for
the first time in this litigation--that the discretionary
home-state exception is unavailable to the Plaintiffs because Dr.
Elskens is a primary Defendant but is not a citizen of Washington.
In reply, the Plaintiffs urge the Court to find that Providence
waived its right to raise this argument now because it failed to
raise it in its response to the Plaintiffs' original motion to
remand. Indeed, the Plaintiffs argued in their original motion that
they met the "primary defendants" requirement because all three
Defendants were alleged to be citizens of Washington and Providence
certainly qualifies as a primary defendant. The Plaintiffs concede
that they do not qualify for the two mandatory exceptions to CAFA
jurisdiction based on the results of jurisdictional discovery.
In response, Providence did not even mention the term "primary
defendant," let alone argue that the home-state exceptions could
not apply because Dr. Elskens was a primary defendant, who was not
a citizen of Washington. Providence did, however, address the
Plaintiffs' argument that the 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3)(A)-(F)
factors favored remand under the discretionary home-state
exception, Judge Robart notes.
Because the Plaintiffs raised their waiver argument in their reply,
Judge Robart says Providence did not have an opportunity to respond
to it. Therefore, the Court orders Providence to show cause why the
Court should not find that it waived its argument that Dr. Elskens
is a primary defendant, who is not a Washington citizen, by failing
to assert it earlier in this litigation. Providence's response will
be limited to 2,100 words in length.
The Plaintiffs may file an optional reply, limited to 1,050 words
in length. The Clerk is directed to renote the Plaintiffs' amended
motion to remand; the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
and Providence's cross-motion to strike class allegations.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3nh97nrr from PacerMonitor.com.
PUBLIC HOSPITAL: Starks Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sonja K. Starks, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF
KING COUNTY, a Washington Public Hospital District, Case No.
24-2-08017-1 KNT was removed from the Washington State Superior
Court for King County, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on May 30, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-00752.
The Plaintiff alleges that she exhausted a "leave" on September 15,
2022. Importantly, Plaintiff does not allege that she was on a job
protected (statutory) leave when she resigned on September 15,
2022, nor does she specify what type of "leave" she is referencing,
Family Medical Leave Act leave (FMLA), Washington Paid Family and
Medical Leave law leave (WPFML), contractual leave, or unprotected
leave.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James Sanders, Esq.
Emily A. Bushaw, Esq.
Kyle D. Nelson, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: +1.206.359.8000
Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
Email: JSanders@perkinscoie.com
EBushaw@perkinscoie.com
KyleNelson@perkinscoie.com
RECOLOGY INC: Villarroel Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Villarroel, Liese L. Sand and Robert F.
Sand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. RECOLOGY INC.; RECOLOGY SAN FRANCISCO; RECOLOGY GOLDEN GATE; AND
SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY, Case No. CGC-21-589528 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 30, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-03266.
On May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "FAC"), asserting eight California state law causes
of action alleging violation of California Business & Professions
Code (the "UCL"), Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent
Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Indirect
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (the "CLRA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
Robert W. May, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Phone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Email: TCheung@mofo.com
RMay@mofo.com
REDWOOD MALL: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. REDWOOD MALL, LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06554 (D.N.J., May 30,
2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties.
The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of
public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in
violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff
personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and
otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during
his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years
and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has
actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will
continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant.
Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing
threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with
the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not
necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced.
The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA
that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to
the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout
the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain
potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable
limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the
2010 ADA Standards. The Property fails to provide a continuous
accessible route throughout the shopping center. The exterior
accessible route which connects the parking to the tenant spaces
and throughout the shopping center from tenant space to tenant
space is impeded by excessive cross-sloping and abrupt changes in
level. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work
surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his
reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within
Seasons Coal Fired Bistro and Ego Salon Spa, are inaccessible to
Mr. Maurer (and all mobility impaired persons), says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities.
REDWOOD MALL, LLC owns or operates a place of public accommodation,
in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
RENOVACARE INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants in part motions to dismiss the
consolidated lawsuit titled IN RE RENOVACARE, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-13766-BRM-JSA (D.N.J.).
Before the Court are three Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) filed by: (1) Defendants
RenovaCare, Inc. ("RenovaCare" or the "Company"), Harmel Rayat,
Jatinder Bhogal, and 1420527 Alberta Ltd. ("Alberta Ltd.")
(collectively, the "RenovaCare Defendants"); (2) Defendant Capitol
Information Group, Inc. d/b/a StreetAuthority.com (formerly
StreetAuthority, LLC) ("CIG"); and (3) Defendants Jeetenderjit
Singh Sidhu, Treadstone Financial Group LLC, and Blackbriar Asset
Management Ltd. (collectively, the "Sidhu Defendants," and together
with the RenovaCare Defendants and CIG, "Defendants").
Lead Plaintiff Diana Deidan brings this putative class action
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The
federal securities putative class action is brought on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or acquired RenovaCare
securities between Aug. 14, 2017, and May 28, 2021 (the "Class
Period").
RenovaCare currently advertises itself as a medical and development
stage company engaged in research and development, business
development, and capital raises. RenovaCare owns the CellMist
System, which consists of a treatment method for burn patients,
including cell isolation for the regeneration of human skin cells
and other tissues, and an experimental solution sprayer medical
device to deliver healing cells to burn wound treatment areas known
as the "SkinGun."
As late as 2013, RenovaCare operated under the name of Janus
Resources Inc. and purported to be in the business of oil-and-gas
production. Eventually the Company's business plan was altered and
in the middle of 2013 the Company purchased the technology related
to the SkinGun.
RenovaCare's common stock is traded on the over-the-counter market
(the "OTC Market") under the symbol "RCAR." Rayat has been the
Company's majority and controlling shareholder since 1999. As of
March 24, 2022, Rayat also serves as RenovaCare's interim
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and
Secretary.
The Plaintiffs allege there was a longstanding, concealed, and
wide-reaching fraudulent stock promotion scheme (the "Scheme") to
artificially increase the share price and trading volume of
RenovaCare's common stock that was never disclosed to investors.
The Scheme was intended to permit the Defendants to sell their
RenovaCare shares at an inflated price and involved a number of
steps including: (i) accumulating millions of shares of RenovaCare
stock at below-market prices and distributing them; (ii)
coordinating the registration of restricted shares for resale and
depositing them as "free trading" shares in brokerage accounts in
the United States and Canada; (iii) promoting RenovaCare stock to
investors through a paid promotional campaign via a third-party
company while intending to sell the Company's stock--a practice
known as "scalping"; (iv) disseminating materially false statements
in a press release and a Form 8-K filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), both of which contained statements
denying any involvement in the promotional campaign; (v)
orchestrating RenovaCare press releases to coincide with the
third-party company's promotion; and (vi) manipulative trading
across multiple accounts to support the share price and trading
volume of RenovaCare stock while selling over one million of shares
to monetize the scheme.
The foundation for the Scheme included the arranged sale of
below-market value RenovaCare stock, an aggressive investor
relations program, and the establishment of brokerage accounts held
by various entities so that RenovaCare's stock could be sold once
the stock price was "pumped." Between 2007 and 2013, Rayat sold
millions of RenovaCare shares to entities owned and controlled by
Sidhu and Bhogal that assisted in the fraud by transacting in
RenovaCare stock. These transactions allowed Bhogal and Sidhu to
acquire millions of shares of RenovaCare stock for little or no
money, and in exchange, Rayat received debt or equity interests
that permitted him to maintain a financial interest in later sales
of these shares.
Sidhu owned and controlled Blackbriar Ltd. and Treadstone LLC.
Sidhu received the RenovaCare stock either directly from Rayat or
in transactions financed by Rayat. Sidhu served on the Board of
Directors of RenovaCare's predecessor entity from September 2008
through 2010. Bhogal owned and controlled Alberta Ltd. and received
the RenovaCare stock in transactions financed or arranged by Rayat.
Bhogal also served as an advisor to RenovaCare through his wholly
owned consulting firm Vector Asset Management, Inc. ("Vector") from
Aug. 1, 2013, through June 26, 2018, when he was appointed as
RenovaCare's Chief Operating Officer.
In 2008, Sharon Fleming acquired 300,000 RenovaCare shares in a
private transaction with the Company. Fleming served as a
third-party investor relations consultant to RenovaCare through her
wholly owned consulting firm Inspiren LLC ("Inspiren"). Sidhu,
Bhogal, Rayat, and Fleming closely coordinated brokerage accounts
that were used for trading RenovaCare shares. Pursuant to federal
securities laws, the RenovaCare shares in Sidhu and Bhogal's
brokerage accounts were restricted from sale as of April 2017.
On June 6, 2017, RenovaCare amended a Form S-1 Registration
Statement ("S-1")—which was already pending with the SEC—to add
Sidhu and Bhogal's shares to the list of shares that the Company
sought to register for resale. The prior version of the S-1 had
sought to register approximately two million RenovaCare shares
owned by Rayat and other friends and associates.
On July 15, 2017, the SEC declared RenovaCare's amended S-1
effective, removing any restrictions on the ability of Rayat,
Bhogal, and Sidhu to sell their shares. In June and October 2017,
Rayat and Sidhu orchestrated below-market sales of RenovaCare stock
that would later be used to pay StreetAuthority, LLC.
StreetAuthority was an online financial publishing and research
company that sold subscriptions to its investment research
bulletins and newsletters. StreetAuthority was co-founded, owned,
and operated by Lou Betancourt ("Betancourt"), a long-time friend
of Rayat. In early 2019, StreetAuthority was acquired by Investing
Daily, a division of CIG that is an online and print publishing
company serving various markets. After the acquisition,
StreetAuthority's domain name (StreetAuthority.com) became a
division of CIG, and the Plaintiffs allege StreetAuthority began
operating as a fictitious business d/b/a CIG.
In July 2017, Rayat first approached StreetAuthority to promote
RenovaCare and another company that Rayat controlled, SolarWindow.
Betancourt and Rayat agreed that RenovaCare and SolarWindow would
each pay StreetAuthority $50,000 per month for a stock promotional
campaign (the "Promotional Campaign"). Each year, StreetAuthority
built a promotional campaign called the "Predictions Campaign"
around an annual "Predictions Report."
Mr. Rayat arranged for the payments to be made through three
separate third-party investor relations companies, including
Inspiren for the purpose of concealing Rayat and RenovaCare's
involvement. StreetAuthority agreed to use the money to pay for
advertising and other distribution costs related to the publication
and dissemination of its promotion of RenovaCare and SolarWindow.
Ultimately, RenovaCare and SolarWindow were StreetAuthority's "lead
predictions" for its annual Predictions Report. The substance of
the Promotional Campaign relevant to this matter focused on
RenovaCare stock, as well as the SkinGun, and included false
"before and after" pictures of a burn patient purportedly treated
with the SkinGun. The Promotional Campaign claimed that the SkinGun
was a "revolutionary wound-healing device," and encouraged readers
to buy RenovaCare stock and hold it for "10, 20x, even 40x gains."
Further, the Promotional Campaign misleadingly claimed that the
SkinGun would be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (the
"FDA") because RenovaCare had submitted a 510(k) application.
However, RenovaCare did not have a pending 510(k) application
before the FDA.
While the Promotional Campaign was ongoing, Bhogal sold
millions-of-dollars' worth of RenovaCare stock through Alberta
Ltd., a company in which Rayat held a substantial financial
interest. Through the use of the brokerage accounts, Sidhu also
sold millions-of-dollars' worth of RenovaCare stock and engaged in
manipulative trading to artificially inflate the market for
RenovaCare as late as February 2018. Similarly, Fleming sold over
50,000 RenovaCare shares and also engaged in manipulative trading.
The Scheme was initially "discovered in January 2018," and this
discovery resulted in a regulatory investigation, a litigation
release filed by the SEC, and a downgrade of RenovaCare's stock by
the OTC Markets Group, Inc. OTC Markets Group, the entity that
supervised the exchange on which RenovaCare stock was listed, is an
American financial market providing price and liquidity information
for almost 100,000 over-the-counter securities.
On Jan. 2, 2018, OTC Markets Group learned of StreetAuthority's
ongoing promotion of RenovaCare. Thereafter, OTC Markets Group sent
RenovaCare a letter on Jan. 3, 2018, wherein OTC Markets Group
demanded that RenovaCare make public disclosures regarding the
Promotional Campaign (the "OTC Markets Letter"). OTC Markets Group
has a strict disclosure policy regarding company promotions, as the
motivation to provide false information through promotional
campaigns could impact the integrity of OTC Markets Group.
In response, on Jan. 8, 2018, RenovaCare issued a press release
(the "January 2018 Press Release") that "publicly disclosed" the
Jan. 3, 2018 inquiry from OTC Markets Group. The January 2018 Press
Release disclosed that RenovaCare, through its investor relations
agencies, paid $90,005 for out-of-pocket costs incurred by unnamed
investor relations agencies relating to the dissemination of the
StreetAuthority publications.
Throughout the month of February 2018, RenovaCare dealt with
multiple instances of bad publicity. On Feb. 8, 2018, an online
financial media company ("Media Company 1") published an article on
RenovaCare that, among other things, called it "the most dangerous
stock covered to date." On Feb. 12, 2018, Media Company 1 issued
another negative article suggesting that RenovaCare was involved in
a pump-and-dump scheme (together with Media Company 1's February 8,
2018 article, "Media Company 1's Articles"). On the same date,
TheStreetSweeper ("StreetSweeper"), an investigative reporting
website, published an article entitled "RenovaCare: Many Catalysts,
Untold Downside" that exposed deficiencies with RenovaCare's
business operations, products, financials, insider trading
practices, and RenovaCare's questionable response to the OTC
Markets Letter (the "StreetSweeper Article").
In response, RenovaCare issued a press release on Feb. 12, 2018.
RenovaCare accused StreetSweeper of undertaking "irresponsible and
nefarious actions" designed to "damage the public trust" by
"spreading 'short and distort' commentary" about the company and
reiterated RenovaCare's supposed "incredible strides" and the
upcoming "major milestone" of an initial FDA filing. Thereafter,
RenovaCare issued two more misleading press releases on Feb. 15,
2018, and Feb. 21, 2018. On Feb. 21, 2018, RenovaCare's share price
reached an all-time high of over $10.50 per share.
On Feb. 23, 2018, after becoming aware of further promotional
activity related to RenovaCare, OTC Markets Group downgraded the
Company's stock to its lowest tier, the Pink Open Market, also
known as the "pink sheets," and placed a "Caveat Emptor" warning
and skull and crossbones symbol on RenovaCare's company profile
(the "February 2018 Downgrade").
RenovaCare's stock price simultaneously dropped approximately
thirty percent, from $9 per share to $6.28 per share. In further
response to the StreetSweeper Article, RenovaCare issued another
press release entitled "RenovaCare Takes Action to Protect
Shareholder Interests" on March 5, 2018.
On April 12, 2019, over a year after RenovaCare issued the Jan. 8,
2018 Press Release denying the statements in the OTC Markets
Letter, RenovaCare admitted in SEC filings that its disclosure
controls and procedures were ineffective (the "April 2019
Disclosure").
On May 28, 2021, the SEC issued a litigation release (the "SEC
Complaint") stating that RenovaCare was being charged with alleged
securities fraud because of RenovaCare's undisclosed role in the
Promotional Campaign with StreetAuthority.
The SEC Complaint alleged, among other things, that Rayat
"arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a promotional campaign
designed to increase the company's stock price." Further, the SEC
Complaint alleged that Rayat arranged for third parties to make
monthly payments to StreetAuthority's publisher "for the fraudulent
purpose of concealing Rayat's and the company's involvement," and
that Rayat "knew or was reckless in not knowing that the publisher
was required to disclose payments from RenovaCare" under Section
17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
Following the SEC Complaint's issuance, the Company's stock price
fell $0.66, or 24.8 percent, over three consecutive trading
sessions to close at $2.00 per share on June 2, 2021.
On July 16, 2021, the original class action complaint was filed in
this matter, previously bearing the caption Boller v. RenovaCare,
Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 21-13766 (BRM)(ESK). This original class
action complaint named RenovaCare, Rayat, and Thomas Bold ("Bold")
as Defendants and brought the following two claims pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"): Count I
(Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
Promulgated Thereunder), and Count II (Violation of Section 20(a)
of The Exchange Act).
Thereafter, another prospective plaintiff filed a complaint in a
separate action titled Solakian v. RenovaCare, Inc. et al., Civ. A.
No. 21-13930 (BRM)(ESK). On November 23, 2021, the Honorable Edward
S. Kiel, U.S.M.J.14 consolidated Solakian and Boller, appointed
Diana Deidan as lead plaintiff, and ordered that Civil Action No.
21-13766 would constitute the Master Docket bearing the caption In
Re RenovaCare, Inc. Securities Litigation ("In Re RenovaCare").
On Feb. 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class
Action Complaint naming RenovaCare, Rayat, Bold, CIG, and
Betancourt as Defendants and bringing the following three claims
pursuant to the Exchange Act: Count I (Violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder); Count
II (Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act); and Count III
(Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a)
and (c) Promulgated Thereunder).
On Feb. 14, 2022, Judge Kiel consolidated Emberland v. Rayat, Civ.
A. No. 21-20569 (BRM)(ESK), Vargas v. Rayat, Civ. A. No. 22-00053
(BRM)(ESK), and Meyer v. Rayat, Civ. A. No. 22-00430 (the
"Shareholder Derivative Actions") into In Re RenovaCare. On Feb.
24, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Feb. 14, 2022 consolidation. On Sept. 23, 2022, Judge Kiel entered
an Order granting the Motion for Reconsideration, thereby,
separating the Shareholder Derivative Actions from In Re
RenovaCare.
On Dec. 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC bringing the
following claims pursuant to the Exchange Act: Count I (Violations
of Section 9(f) of the Exchange Act16 Against Defendants Bhogal,
Sidhu, and Fleming; Count II (Violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) Promulgated Thereunder Against All
Defendants); Count III (Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) Promulgated Thereunder Against All
Defendants); Count IV (Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act Against Defendants Rayat, Bold, and Betancourt); and Count V
(Violations of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act Against Defendants
Rayat, Bhogal, Sidhu, and Fleming).
In the SAC, the Plaintiffs brought claims against RenovaCare,
Rayat, Bold, Bhogal, Sidhu, Fleming, CIG, Betancourt, Treadstone
Financial Group Ltd. ("Treadstone Ltd."), Treadstone LLC,
Blackbriar, and Alberta Ltd. On July 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to their claims against Bold and
Treadstone Ltd. On Oct. 10, 2023, the Defendants filed their
respective Motions to Dismiss the SAC. On Dec. 11, 2023, the
Plaintiffs filed an omnibus opposition to the Motions. On Jan. 10,
2024, the Defendants filed their respective replies.
The Defendants assert the Plaintiffs' claims are time barred by the
relevant statute of limitations. Alternatively, the Sidhu
Defendants submit the Plaintiffs' claims, to the extent they are
premised on the Sidhu Defendants' conduct preceding Dec. 15, 2017,
are barred by the statute of repose.
Although a reasonably diligent plaintiff may have started an
investigation based on one or more of the Storm Warnings, the
statute of limitations does not begin to run until a reasonably
diligent plaintiff would have discovered sufficient facts to
adequately plead the alleged securities violations, which here
would not have occurred until May 28, 2021, when the SEC
Complaint was filed, Judge Martinotti notes.
Accordingly, Judge Martinotti denies the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss the SAC on statute of limitation grounds. The Defendants
may renew their statute of limitations defense at a later stage.
The latest misrepresentation by Sidhu that the Plaintiffs allege is
in February 2018, Judge Martinotti notes. The Court, therefore,
finds that the Plaintiffs' claims against the Sidhu Defendants are
not barred by the five-year statute of repose because the
Plaintiffs brought their claims against the Sidhu Defendants in
December 2022, i.e., within five years of the last alleged
misrepresentation against them. Accordingly, the Sidhu Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the SAC on statute of repose grounds is denied.
CIG asserts the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that CIG should be
held liable solely because it purchased assets from
StreetAuthority. CIG notes the only allegations against itself is
that CIG was "formerly StreetAuthority, LLC." CIG submits it
entered into an asset purchase agreement (the "APA") with
StreetAuthority and other entities, which confirms that CIG merely
purchased certain assets from StreetAuthority and never has been
"formerly" StreetAuthority, which continued to exist as a separate
and distinct entity. CIG argues that pursuant to the express terms
of the APA, it did not agree to assume StreetAuthority's
liabilities.
However, the Plaintiffs argue that the APA is not "properly
authenticated." Notwithstanding, the Court will not engage in an
evidentiary determination at this stage given that the Plaintiffs
dispute the authenticity of the APA. Therefore, the Court will not
consider the APA.
Judge Martinotti also finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
pled CIG is liable as StreetAuthority's successor. Accordingly,
CIG's Motion to Dismiss the SAC is granted.
With respect to the RenovaCare Defendants and the Sidhu Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss Count I of the SAC as against Bhogal and Sidhu,
these Defendants dispute the adequacy of the SAC's pleading of the
third and fifth elements of their securities claims under Section
9(a)(2) of the Exchange Act. Therefore, the Court focuses its
analysis on these two elements--(3) for the purpose of inducing the
security's sale or purchase by others, and (5) affected plaintiff's
purchase or selling price.
Judge Martinotti holds that the SAC sufficiently alleges that
Bhogal and Sidhu engaged in manipulative trading for the purpose of
inducing others to purchase or sell RenovaCare stock, and that the
Plaintiffs have adequately pled that Bhogal and Sidhu's
manipulative trading affected RenovaCare's stock price.
Based on these allegations, Judge Martinotti opines the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently pled that Bhogal and Sidhu's manipulative trading
affected the RenovaCare share price. Accordingly, the RenovaCare
Defendants and the Sidhu Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Count I of
the SAC are denied.
The RenovaCare Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' claim for
material misstatements or omissions (Count II of the SAC) should be
dismissed because: (1) RenovaCare, Rayat, and Bhogal did not have a
duty to disclose the Promotional Campaign; and (2) Bhogal and Rayat
were not the "makers" of RenovaCare's alleged false statements.
Judge Martinotti finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled
Rayat, but not Bhogal, was the "Maker" of RenovaCare's alleged
untrue statements or omissions in the January 2018 Press Release.
Accordingly, the RenovaCare Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II
of the SAC as to Bhogal is granted. The Plaintiffs have also
adequately pled RenovaCare and Rayat had a duty to speak truthfully
and disclose the extent of the Promotional Campaign in the January
2018 Press Release. Accordingly, the RenovaCare Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Count II of the SAC as to Rayat and RenovaCare is
denied.
In Count III, the Plaintiffs raise claims against the Defendants
for a scheme to defraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rules 10b-5(a) and (c).
Judge Martinotti finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled
claims for scheme liability against the RenovaCare Defendants, and
scheme liability claim against Sidhu. Accordingly, the Court
denieds the RenovaCare Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III of
the SAC, and the Sidhu Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III of
the SAC as to Sidhu.
The Sidhu Defendants assert the Plaintiffs fail to state claims in
Counts I, II, and III against Treadstone LLC and Blackbriar Ltd.
because the SAC does not contain factual allegations supporting
primary liability as to either of these entities. Accordingly, the
Sidhu Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the SAC as
to Treadstone LLC and Blackbriar Ltd. is granted. The Court also
grants the RenovaCare Defendants and the Sidhu Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss Count V of the SAC.
The RenovaCare Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' claims for
control person liability under Sections 20(a) of the Exchange Act
should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs do not plead any
underlying securities fraud claims.
The Court has held that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled
underlying violations against the RenovaCare Defendants in Counts
I, II, and III of the SAC. Accordingly, the RenovaCare Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Count IV of the SAC is denied.
For these reasons, the Court orders that the RenovaCare Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; CIG's
Motion to Dismiss is granted; and the Sidhu Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. All claims that have
been dismissed, are dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
may, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Opinion, file a
third amended class action complaint curing the deficiencies
addressed herein. The Defendants may respond to the third amended
class action complaint, if filed, as appropriate and consistent
with applicable federal and local rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/swybc2hp from PacerMonitor.com.
RIVER HOUSE: Faces Gaspa Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. River House Chinese Cuisine, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-06339 (D.N.J., May 22, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible
to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective
communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
River House Chinese Cuisine, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant
and the website, https://riverhousecc.com/, which offers
information about traditional Chinese dishes, regional and seafood
specialties, along with services as takeout, delivery and coupons,
as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and
internet pricing specials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
ROSENBLUM FAMILY: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. ROSENBLUM FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a New Jersey Limited Partnership, Case No.
3:24-cv-06548 (D.N.J., May 30, 2024), is brought for injunctive
relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible
properties.
The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of
public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in
violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff
personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and
otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during
his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years
and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has
actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will
continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant.
Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing
threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with
the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not
necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced.
The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA
that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to
the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout
the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain
potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable
limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the
2010 ADA Standards. The Property fails to provide a continuous
accessible route throughout the shopping center. The exterior
accessible route which connects the parking to the tenant spaces
and throughout the shopping center from tenant space to tenant
space is impeded by excessive cross-sloping and abrupt changes in
level. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work
surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his
reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within
Seasons Coal Fired Bistro and Ego Salon Spa, are inaccessible to
Mr. Maurer (and all mobility impaired persons), says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities.
ROSENBLUM FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP owns or operates a place of
public accommodation, in this instance a shopping
center/plaza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Bid for Equitable Relief in Hartman Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denies the motion for equitable
relief filed in the lawsuit titled SHANNON HARTMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-01591-AMO (N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is Plaintiff Katie Lightfoot's motion for
equitable relief.
Judge Martinez-Olguin notes that while Title VII authorizes
equitable remedies, such as reinstatement, those remedies are
ordered if the court finds that the respondent has intentionally
engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment
practice charged in the complaint, citing 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e-5(g)(1), and Proctor v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of
Delaware, 942 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1991).
Here, no such finding has been made, Judge Martinez-Olguin points
out. Thus, assuming, without deciding, that Lightfoot still has a
Title VII claim available to her in this case, the instant motion
for equitable relief is premature prior to a liability
determination and is, therefore, denied.
To the extent Lightfoot seeks to, on reply, restyle her motion as
one for a preliminary injunction, Judge Martinez-Olguin says it is
also denied.
The Court notes that, in their opposition, the Defendants seek
dismissal of any claims that are duplicative of those pending in a
parallel class action. Lightfoot objects that the request is
improper and contrary to the sequencing the Defendants insisted on
during the status conference held May 8, 2024.
As discussed at length during that setting, Judge Martinez-Olguin
says the Defendants may file a separate motion to the extent they
seek dismissal of any of the Plaintiffs' claims on the ground that
they are duplicative of those asserted in the parallel class case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ys89ueh from PacerMonitor.com.
STAKE CENTER: Court Denies Loonsfoot's Bid to Dismiss Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL LOONSFOOT, Individually and for
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W.
Dugan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denies the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss complaint.
Plaintiff Michael Loonsfoot filed the instant case, a purported
class action, seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages
from his former employer, Stake Center Locating, LLC ("SCL"). The
Plaintiff brings two claims for relief: (1) a claim under the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for failure to pay overtime
wages, and (2) a claim under the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("IWPCA") for failure to pay all agreed upon wages.
In his Complaint, Loonsfoot alleges that the Court has original
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Jurisdictional
provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d) ("CAFA"). In response to the Complaint, SCL filed a Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, seeking a Judgment on the
Plaintiff's IMWL claim (regarding the "auto allowance") and on his
entire IWPCA claim.
Perplexingly, Judge Dugan says, 18 days after SCL filed its Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, Loonsfoot filed a Motion to Dismiss
his own Complaint, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SCL
opposes the motion, arguing that subject matter jurisdiction
clearly exists, and that the Plaintiff is only seeking dismissal to
avoid a ruling on the pending Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.
The Court, therefore, is in the unusual position of resolving a
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed by
the party that invoked this Court's jurisdiction in the first
place.
SCL is a limited liability company that provides utility locating
services across the country. The Plaintiff is a former SCL
employee. He worked as a Gas Tech, Lead Gas Tech, Area Manager, and
Trainer in Illinois and Texas from approximately December 2021
until June 2023.
The Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on Sept. 21, 2023, on behalf
of himself and a putative class of similarly situated employees. He
claims that SCL failed to pay employees for compensable "off the
clock" work (work employees were allegedly required to complete
during their meal breaks, as well as before and after work). In
addition, he claims that SCL paid its employees an allowance for
"auto pay," but failed to include that amount in each employee's
regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the appropriate
amount of overtime pay.
In Count I, the Plaintiff claims that SCL's "off the clock" and
"auto pay" practice violates the IMWL by depriving employees of
overtime wages. In Count II, he claims that SCL's "off the clock"
and "auto pay" practice violates the IWPCA by depriving employees
of all their earned wages at the rates agreed to by the parties for
all hours worked.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff contends that jurisdiction is proper
under CAFA because the proposed class has more than 100 members,
the minimal diversity requirement is met, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million dollars.
On Dec. 6, 2023, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to submit
supplemental briefing clarifying SCL's citizenship. The Plaintiff
responded, filing a supplemental memorandum stating that SCL's sole
member, S&N Communications, Inc. ("S&N"), is a citizen of North
Carolina.
SCL answered the Complaint and filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. The Plaintiff, then, filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction and a Motion to Prioritize Jurisdictional
Dismissal, asking the Court to resolve the question of federal
subject matter jurisdiction before ruling on the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
In his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the Plaintiff
does not present any newly discovered facts demonstrating that his
original allegations as to the presence of CAFA jurisdiction were
mistaken. Instead, he claims that SCL's Answer demonstrates that
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Specifically, the Plaintiff
notes that the Complaint includes a general allegation that the
Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to the jurisdictional provisions of the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Additionally, the
Complaint alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, at least one member of the Putative Class and SCL are
citizens of different states, and the Putative Class exceeds 100
members.
In answering the Complaint, however, SCL denied these allegations.
According to the Plaintiff, these denials demonstrate that
jurisdiction is lacking because the information necessary to
determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction is
solely in SCL's hands.
Given his unusual litigation tactic (and SCL's response to the
same), Loonsfoot, the party that initially invoked this Court's
jurisdiction, has become the party opposing federal jurisdiction
and SCL has become the proponent of federal jurisdiction, Judge
Dugan notes. Given this role reversal, the Court believes it is
appropriate to employ authority addressing burden allocation in the
context of a motion to remand for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Applying that case law, SCL, as the proponent of
federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing the general
requirements of CAFA jurisdiction.
Further, because Loonsfoot is contesting the amount in controversy,
SCL must "prove those jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of
the evidence," Judge Dugan opines, citing Blomberg v. Serv. Corp.
Int'l, 639 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2011). This means that SCL must
show not only what the stakes of the litigation could be, but also
what they are given the Plaintiff's actual demands. The
demonstration concerns what the Plaintiff is claiming (and thus the
amount in controversy between the parties), not whether the
Plaintiff is likely to win or be awarded everything he seeks.
Judge Dugan explains that there is no dispute that the parties are
minimally diverse. SCL is a Utah LLC with its principal place of
business in North Carolina. Therefore, under CAFA, SCL is a citizen
of Utah and North Carolina. Loonsfoot, a natural person, is a
citizen of Illinois. As such, the requisite minimal diversity
exists.
The record also reflects that the proposed class exceeds 100 class
members, Judge Dugan finds. The Plaintiff's proposed IMWL class
consists of "[a]ll hourly employees who worked for SCL in Illinois
at any time during the past three years," and his proposed IWPCA
class consists of "[a]ll hourly employees who worked for SCL in
Illinois at any time during the past 10 years." A declaration from
Scott McCullough, the Director of Human Resources for SCL,
demonstrates that each class, as defined by Loonsfoot, exceeds 100
class members.
Mr. Loonsfoot, who initially alleged that the proposed class
exceeds 100 class members, does not offer any proof refuting Mr.
McCullough's declaration, Judge Dugan notes. Instead, Loonsfoot
relies on the fact that, in answering the Complaint, SCL, the party
with "vastly superior access to relevant information", denied the
jurisdictional allegations in the Complaint.
The Plaintiff, however, does not cite to (and the Court is not
aware of) any authority establishing that denials in SCL's answer
control the Court's determination of jurisdictional facts. Finally,
the allegations in the Complaint and the Declaration of Scott
McCullough support a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million.
Considering the record as a whole, the Court finds that SCL has
demonstrated this case satisfies CAFA's minimal diversity, class
size, and amount in controversy requirements. Accordingly, the
Court has CAFA jurisdiction over the claims in this case.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Motion for Partial Judgment on
the Pleadings will be addressed by separate order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated June 3,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/huhn54rs from
PacerMonitor.com.
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Must Oppose Winter Class Cert Bid by August 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Winter, v. Stronghold
Digital Mining, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03088-RA-GS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered an order as follows:
-- The Defendants' opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Class
Certification
Motion is due by Aug. 30, 2024, and
-- Lead Plaintiff's reply thereto is due by Oct. 16, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5MAdis at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey Crough, Esq.
Marisa Antonelli, Esq.
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
1114 Avenue of Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 237-0000
Facsimile: (212) 237-0100
E-mail: jcrough@velaw.com
mantonelli@velaw.com
TAL EDUCATION: Faces Securities Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
TAL Education Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended February 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 31, 2024, that it is facing a March 29,
2023 putative securities class action filed against the company and
an executive in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The complaint alleges that the company made misrepresentations and
misleading disclosures between June 14, 2022 and March 14, 2023
about its compliance with Chinese laws and regulations. On August
17, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On October 16,
2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which named
the company and several executives as co-defendants. On December
15, 2023, the company and the other defendants filed a joint motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 13, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed the opposition to
the defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2024, the company
and other defendants filed a reply to the lead plaintiff's
opposition.
The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.
TAL Education Group to is an offshore holding company that offers
comprehensive tutoring services to K-12 students covering core
academic subjects as well as learning products, contents,
technologies, services and other learning resources for learners
and customers.
TAL EDUCATION: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
TAL Education Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended February 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 31, 2024, that it is facing a purported
securities class action was filed against the company and certain
of its current and former executives in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The February 4, 2022 complaint alleged that the company made
misrepresentations and misleading disclosures between April 26,
2018 and July 22, 2021 about Chinese laws governing the tutoring
industry and the company's compliance with them.
On April 7, 2022, the court endorsed an application the company
filed to stay its obligation to respond to the Initial Complaint
until after the court appoints a lead plaintiff. On October 12,
2022, the court appointed two co-lead plaintiffs. On October 19,
2022, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
February 10, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On March 27, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the company’s motion to dismiss. On April 26, 2023,
the company filed a reply to the lead plaintiff's opposition. On
October 2, 2023, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
in its entirety and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
After requesting for and obtaining an extension from the Court, the
lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 20,
2023. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on January 19, 2024. On February 15, 2024, the lead
plaintiff filed the opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.
On March 15, 2024, the company filed its reply to lead
plaintiff’s opposition.
TAL Education Group to is an offshore holding company that offers
comprehensive tutoring services to K-12 students covering core
academic subjects as well as learning products, contents,
technologies, services and other learning resources for learners
and customers.
UNITED SUGAR: Kluessendorf Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA KLUESSENDORF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS
COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING, INC., ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC.,
CARGILL, INC., MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.,
and RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01913 (D. Minn.,
May 22, 2024) seek injunctive relief, treble damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other just relief for Defendants' violations
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
laws of the several States.
The class action arises from Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of granulated sugar and
allocate and unreasonably restraint trade in the market for
Granulated Sugar sold in the United States from January 1, 2019. In
implementing their agreement, the Defendants shared accurate,
non-public, competitively sensitive information with each other. As
a result, Plaintiff and the Class Members have sustained injury,
having purchased granular sugar for higher prices during the Class
Period than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants'
illegal conspiracy, says the suit.
Based in Edina, MN, United Sugar is a Minnesota corporation that
sells granulated sugar primarily under the brand name Crystal
Sugar. Four member-owners comprise United: United States Sugar
Corporation; American Crystal Sugar Company; Minn-Dak Farmers
Cooperative; and Wyoming Sugar Company, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Brant D. Penney, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
80 So. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
USI INSURANCE: Court Denies Cunningham's Bid to Produce Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LAUREN CUNNINGHAM, individually and as a
representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries in and
on behalf of the USI 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. USI INSURANCE
SERVICES, LLC, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC,
USI 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants,
Case No. 7:21-cv-01819-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies
the Plaintiff's request for an order directing the Defendants to
produce recordkeeping agreements.
Plaintiff Lauren Cunningham, a participating employee of the USI
401(k) Plan (the "Plan"), brings this putative class action against
Defendants USI Insurance Services, LLC ("USI"), its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), the USI 401(k) Plan Committee (the "Plan
Committee"), and John and Jane Does 1-30. On Dec. 12, 2023, the
Court issued an Opinion & Order dismissing the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint and granting her leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.
On Feb. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint.
On March 7, 2024, the Defendants sought leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's SAC, which the Court granted. According to
the briefing schedule set by the Court, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss must be fully briefed on June 3, 2024.
On May 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking an
Order from the Court directing the Defendants to complete the
record and submit the Plan's recordkeeping agreements or, in the
alternative, convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment. On May 17, 2024, the Defendants filed a letter in
response opposing leave. On May 28, 2024, the Court held oral
argument on the issue.
The crux of the Plaintiff's argument is that the Court should
direct the Defendants to produce the recordkeeping agreements so
there is a complete, accurate record for the motion to dismiss.
Having a "complete record," however, is immaterial to whether the
Court should consider materials outside of the pleadings on a
motion to dismiss, Judge Roman opines.
At this juncture, Judge Roman says the relevant inquiry is whether
the Plaintiff incorporates the recordkeeping agreements by
reference or relied on them in drafting the SAC. The Plaintiff does
neither. Instead, she makes only a passing reference to the
recordkeeping agreements in a footnote wherein she concedes that
she did not rely on them.
This is insufficient, Judge Roman points out. Accordingly, the
Court may not consider the recordkeeping agreements in deciding the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court, therefore, declines to
direct the Defendants to produce them at this juncture.
The Court further declines to convert the Defendants' motion to
dismiss into one for summary judgment because it has not considered
matters outside of the pleadings.
The Court denies the Plaintiff's request for an Order directing
Defendants to produce the recordkeeping agreements or,
alternatively, for the Court to convert the motion to dismiss into
a motion for summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 3, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/53cynkdu from PacerMonitor.com.
VELODYNE LIDAR: $27.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
MEYSAM MORADPOUR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VELODYNE LIDAR, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-CV-01486-SI
SUMMARY NOTICE
CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED VELODYNE SECURITIES BETWEEN JULY 2,
2020 AND MARCH 17, 2021, INCLUSIVE,
AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, that a hearing will be held on August 16, 2024, at
10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Susan Illston, United States
Senior District Judge, at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Phillip
Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse – Courtroom 1,
17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 or at
such other location or via telephonic or video appearance as
determined by the Court, for the purposes of determining: (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for
the amount of $27,500,000.00 cash should be approved by the Court
as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by
the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate and
should be approved; (4) whether the Fee and Expense Application and
Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement pursuant to 15 U.S.C
§78u-4(a)(4) should be approved; and (5) such other matters as the
Court may deem appropriate.
Lead Counsel has not received any payment for their services
in pursuing claims against the Defendants on behalf of the Class,
nor has Lead Counsel been reimbursed for their out-of-pocket
expenses. Before final approval of the Settlement, Lead Counsel
will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees from the
Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed 28% of the Settlement
Fund. At the same time, Lead Counsel also intends to apply for the
reimbursement of expenses and costs incurred in connection with
prosecuting the Litigation not to exceed $315,000, which may
include an application for reimbursement of the reasonable costs
and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to her
representation of the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a) (4)
in an amount not to exceed $20,000. The Court will determine the
amount of any Fee and Expense Award and any reimbursement of Lead
Plaintiff's reasonable costs and expenses. Such sums as may be
approved by the Court, including the costs of providing notice and
administering the Settlement (not to exceed $250,000), will be paid
from the Settlement Fund. Class Members are not personally liable
for any such fees or expenses. If all fees and expenses are
approved by the Court, the net settlement fund is estimated to be
$19,235,000.
This Summary Notice relates to a proposed settlement of claims in a
pending securities class action lawsuit brought by investors
alleging, among other things, that Defendants Anand Gopalan,
Michael Dee, James Graf, and Andrew Hamer (the "Individual
Defendants") and Defendant Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or the
"Company") (together with the Individual Defendants, "Defendants"),
violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making materially
false and misleading statements and/or omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements not misleading because, among
other reasons, Defendants either knew, or deliberately disregarded,
facts regarding an undisclosed power struggle at the Company,
including a plan to oust the Company founder David Hall from his
leadership position, including through a pretextual Audit Committee
Investigation. The proposed settlement was reached following two
mediation sessions and extensive arm's-length negotiations
conducted with the assistance of an experienced third-party
mediator, Jed D. Melnick of JAMS.
Defendants have expressly denied and continue to expressly deny all
charges of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever arising out of any of
the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged, or that could
have been alleged, in the Litigation, and maintain that their
conduct was at all times proper and in compliance with applicable
provisions of the federal securities laws. Specifically, Defendants
deny, among other things, that they made any material misstatements
or omissions in Velodyne's public
filings, press releases, or other public statements, that they
engaged in any wrongdoing or misconduct, or that they are liable
for any of the claims or damages that have been asserted, or could
be asserted, in the Litigation. These issues have not been ruled on
by the Court.
IF YOU PURCHASED VELDOYNE PUBLICLY TRADED
SECURITIES BETWEEN JULY 2, 2020 AND MARCH 17, 2021,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to Velodyne Securities Litigation c/o Epiq Class Action and Claims
Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 2666, Portland, OR 97208-2666, or at
www.VelodyneSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form by mail (postmarked
no later than September 11, 2024), or electronically no later than
September 11, 2024, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Failure to submit your Proof of Claim and Release by September 11,
2024 will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude
you from receiving any payment from the settlement.
As a Class Member, you are represented by Lead Plaintiff Diane
Smith as Class Representative and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as Lead
Counsel for the Class, unless you enter an appearance on your
behalf or through counsel of your own choice at your own expense.
You are not required to retain your own counsel, but if you choose
to do so, such counsel must file a notice of appearance on your
behalf and serve copies of his or her notice of appearance on the
following attorneys: (1) Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, 1100
Poydras Street, Suite 960, New Orleans, LA, 70163 and (2) Kevin P.
Muck, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, One Front Street,
Suite 3500, San Francisco, CA 94111.
If you are a Class Member and you wish to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than July 26, 2024, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice, referred to above. All Class
Members who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the
Class in response to the Notice will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation.
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the Fee and Expense
Application, Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement pursuant to
15 U.S.C Sec. 78u-4(a)(4), or otherwise request to be heard. To
object, you may submit a written objection in accordance with the
procedures described in the more detailed Notice, referred to
above, and/or you may appear at the hearing described above. Any
written objection must be delivered to: (1) the Clerk of Court,
United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102-3489; (2)
Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, 1100 Poydras Street, Suite
960, New Orleans, LA, 70163; and, (3) Kevin Muck, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, One Front Street,
Suite 3500, San Francisco, CA 94111, such that it is postmarked no
later than July 26, 2024.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COMPANY, COURT OR
CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any
questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the
address listed below:
Ramzi Abadou
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel (Toll Free): (866) 467-1400
DATED: May 27, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Northern District of California
VISA INC: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal OK'd in Camp Ground
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camp Grounds Coffee, LLC
et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al. (RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND
MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 21-CV-3401
(E.D.N.Y.),
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Block, Inc. v. Visa Inc.
et al. (RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 23-CV-5377 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Margo Brodie entered an order:
-- granting the Defendants' motion to enforce the Settlement
Agreement and finds that Square's merchant-customers and
Intuit's
merchant-customers "accepted" payment cards and are therefore
members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class;
-- denying the Lanning Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary
judgment,
and
-- denying Intuit's cross-motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Court denies Intuit's motion for partial summary
judgment as to whether it has antitrust standing based on PayFac
transactions because the Court cannot determine as a matter of law
that Intuit is the direct purchaser of card-acceptance services.
On Jan. 31, 2024, the Defendants in this multidistrict litigation
moved to enforce the Superseding and Amended Definitive Class
Settlement Agreement of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs and
Defendants, or, in the alternative for summary judgment, seeking to
dismiss claims brought by Plaintiffs Block, Inc., f/k/a Square,
Inc., and Intuit Inc. and Intuit Payment Solutions, LLC, that are
based on transactions in which Square or Intuit served as a
"payment facilitator" for their merchant customers.
In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust
claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York, where they were joined by other similar
cases.
Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5BBr1P at no extra
charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***