/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240809.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 160
Headlines
10 ROADS EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Remanded to Alameda Super. Court
AGA SERVICE: Whiteman Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
AKUMIN INC: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action Suit
ALEX VILLANUEVA: Trial Dates Vacated in Malloy
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing in Snow Denied
ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claim
ALLSTATE CORP: Class Cert Bid Referred to MagistrateJudge
AMAZON WEB: Filing Deadlines in Gladstone Suit Extended to Aug. 13
AMAZON.COM: Mahone Class Certification Bid Tossed
AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025
AMERICAN FAMILY: Celaya Suit Seeks Class Certification
AMERICAN PHOENIX: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
AMY PECHACEK: Discovery in Bemke Closes Jan. 15, 2025
APPHARVEST INC: Counsel Awarded $1.4MM in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
APPHARVEST INC: Court Okays Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit
APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Stay Trade-In Program Class Action
APPLE INC: Seeks To File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
AUTO CLUB: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification
AUTOMOBILE ACCEPTANCE: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings Tossed
AXT INC: Grubb Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Nowakowski Suit
BARILLA AMERICA: Must File Responsive Declaration by August 5
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Discovery in Williams Continued to August 20
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Certifies Subclasses in ADA Class Suit
BSV CLAIMS: Appeals Tribunal Certifies Investor Class Lawsuit
BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks to File Opposition Docs Under Seal
CAAIR INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 25
CALIFORNIA: District Court Denies Bid to Stay in Coleman v. Newsom
CAPULET FEST: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin's Bid to Re-Offer 30(b)(6) Witness Granted
CEPTON INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Koito Manufacturing
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Must Designate Expert Witness on Aug. 30
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Stadium Capital Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Medina Amended Complaint Dismissed
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Snyder Says
DELTA AIR: Court Refuses to Dismiss Goodyear Employment Class Suit
DMGG INC: Has Until Aug. 9 to File Class Cert Opposition
DMGG INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
DRAFTKINGS INC: Ends Fantasy Sports NFT Business Amid Class Suit
EF INSTITUTE: Douglas Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 1st Cir.
EXP REALTY: Usanovic Suit Parties Agree to Limit Class Discovery
FASTMED URGENT: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez Class Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Class Cert Hearing in Depina Continued to Oct. 15
FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howards Extended to Dec. 16
FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: May Face Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
GEORGE LITTLE: Court Narrows Claims in Molina Suit
GIANT CO: Holbert Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Bid
GREAT AMERICAN: Bid to Compel Arbitration in CONAM Suit Granted
HADAF LLC: Zeller Must File Supplemental Memo by August 29
HADAF LLC: Zeller Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
HCA HEALTHCARE: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Work for Residency Programs
J.B. HUNT: Class Cert Pretrial Factual Discovery Due Oct. 25
JCF HOUSEMENTS: Aug. 30 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
JJMB OPERATING: Parties Seek FLSA Conditional Class Certification
KOHLER CO: $2.45-Mil. Settlement in Holloway Suit Has Prelim. Nod
LASKO PRODUCTS: Velez "Space Heaters" Suit Seeks Class Status
LGI HOMES: McAlister Seeks Hearing on Class Certification
LIBERTY STEEL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Robinson Suit
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
LINCARE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Morris
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Trial Dates, Pretrial Dates Vacated
LOUISIANA: Appeals Court Ruling in Voice Suit to 5th Circuit
MACROGENICS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Investors
MARYLAND: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Sept. 6
MASSAGE ENVY: McKinney-Drobnis Appeals Denied Attorneys' Fees Bid
MDL 2262: Bondholders' Bid to Distribute Net Settlement Funds OK'd
MEISNER: Bid to Strike in Sinclair Class Suit Denied
MIAMI DADE, FL: Rodriguez Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
MICKEYS & KIRBYS: Parties Seek to Certify Collective Action
MINNESOTA: Goyette's Bid to Dismiss Individual Claims Partly OK'd
MPE PARTNERS: Walther Suit Seeks Sept. 20 Class Cert Bid Filing
MR. COOPER: Court Requires Class Cert Status, Scheduling Conference
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Salom Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NEVADA: Court Denies Malone's IFP Application and Class Cert. Bid
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
NEW YORK, NY: Zarkower Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Miller Suit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeals Class Certification Order in Behar Suit
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Seeks to Strike Sinclair Class Allegations
ODDITY TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 17
OLIN CORP: Must File Class Cert Responses in MPCC Suit by Oct. 2
PACIFIC COAST: Class Action Stayed Due to Bankruptcy Proceedings
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Shareholder Class Suit From Merger Deal
PAWN AMERICA: Denial of Arbitration in Data Breach Suit Affirmed
PFIZER INC: AF of L AGC Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Circuit
PFIZER INC: Welfare Plan Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir
PHOTOMYNE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
PINI INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid in Pinn Extended by 45 Days
PINI INSURANCE: Pinn Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
PORSCHE AG: Klein Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
PORSCHE AG: Plaintiffs Can File Declaration Under Seal
PREMIER FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Wesbanco
RECOVER-CARE HEALTHCARE: Phase 1 Sched Order Entered in Vasquez
REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Class Settlement in Bickham Gets Final Nod
RUE DE CAN: Vega Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
SASKATCHEWAN: Court Denies Intervenors in Forced Sterilization Suit
SAVE MART: Court Vacates Class Certification Deadlines in Baker
SILK ROAD: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Boston Scientific
SNEAKER ROOM: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Vega Suit Alleges
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL: Investors Block Dismissal Motion of Class Suit
TAYLOR, MI: Flummerfelt's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Denied
TENNESSEE GAS: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 21
TENNESSEE: Patton Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
TENNESSEE: Thomas Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
TEXAS PRIDE: Veira Seeks Waste Disposal Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
UNION DES ASSOCIATIONS: N.D. California Dismisses Losson Suit
WALMART INC: Agrees to Settle Wage Class Action Suit for $2.5-Mil.
WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Racial Disparity Class Action
WEST VIRGINIA: Sheppheard Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
[*] Gaza Backers Prepare Class Action Suit Against Rep. Thompson
[*] Hadi Law Prepares Class Lawsuit Against Democrat Taral Patel
[*] Real Estate Commissions Shift Amid Class Suit Settlement
[*] Securities Class Action Filing Increased in First Half of 2024
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Defends 4,106 Individual Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 293 Individual Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $112MM Claims Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Reports 522 PI Claims Outstanding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.24BB Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $824MM Total Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Exposure Claims
*********
10 ROADS EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Remanded to Alameda Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID JR. DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff v. 10 ROADS
EXPRESS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02409-RS (N.D.
Cal.), Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California grants the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda.
The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in Alameda Superior
Court asserting a variety of state law wage and hour claims against
Defendant 10 Roads Express, LLC, and an individual. The Defendants
removed to this Court, asserting both federal question and
diversity jurisdiction.
The Defendants have withdrawn the claim of diversity jurisdiction,
however, and the sole issue now is whether there is a federal
question to support removal on that basis. Because there is not,
Judge Seeborg holds that the Plaintiff's motion to remand will be
granted.
The Defendant contends the Plaintiff's state law claims are
preempted by a regulation promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration ("FMCSA"). Indeed, on Dec. 28, 2018, the
FMCSA issued an order concluding that California's meal and rest
break laws, as applied to commercial vehicle drivers, are preempted
by the FMCSA's regulations.
The Defendant argues the Plaintiff is effectively contesting the
validity of the FMCSA's Dec. 28, 2018 order, which could only have
been directly challenged by a timely petition filed in an
appropriate court of appeal. The Defendant insists it "makes little
logical, practical, or legal sense" to remand this matter to a
state court that will have no jurisdiction to overturn the FMCSA's
order, and therefore, no power to do anything other than find the
state law claims preempted.
The point, however, is that the state court unquestionably has
jurisdiction over the case in the first instance, because the
Plaintiff's claims sound in state law and the superior court has
general jurisdiction, Judge Seeborg opines.
According to Judge Seeborg, the superior court has jurisdiction to
evaluate and rule on the Defendant's preemption defense. This Court
does not. Hence, the motion to remand is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ukwthsp7 from PacerMonitor.com.
AGA SERVICE: Whiteman Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN WHITEMAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AGA SERVICE
COMPANY, INC., a foreign corporation, AND JETBLUE AIRWAYS
CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Case No. 0:23-cv-61826-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the proposed classes and subclass,
-- appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and
-- appointing Hilgers Graben PLLC as class counsel.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiff Alan
Whiteman moves to certify the following classes and subclass:
(1) The AGA Class for claims of breach of contract against the
AGA
Service Company, Inc. (Count I), with the class defined as:
"All Florida persons who, within the limitations period,
purchased travel assistance services from AGA through the
electronic booking path of a Travel Retailer 2 and where a
fee
was paid to the Travel Retailer as a result of the purchase
of
the travel assistance services."
(2) The JetBlue Class for claims of breach of contract against
JetBlue Airways Corporation (Count III), with the class
defined
as:
"All persons nationwide who, within the limitations period,
purchased travel assistance services from AGA or its
predecessors through JetBlue's electronic booking path after
purchasing a JetBlue flight, and where a fee was paid to
JetBlue as a result of the purchase of the travel assistance
services."
(3) The JetBlue Florida Subclass as a subclass of the JetBlue
Class, for claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA") against JetBlue (Count II) and
tortious interference against AGA (Count IV), with the
subclass
defined as:
"All Florida persons who, within the limitations period,
purchased travel assistance services from AGA or its
predecessors through JetBlue's electronic booking path after
purchasing a JetBlue flight, and where a fee was paid to
JetBlue as a result of the purchase of the travel assistance
services."
The Plaintiff also moves to be appointed representative of the
certified class or classes, and to appoint the law firm Hilgers
Graben PLLC as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiff's claims are based on JetBlue and AGA contract terms
that are identical across each proposed class, and Defendants’
alleged misconduct as to each class was materially uniform. A host
of precedent in this District and throughout the Eleventh Circuit
supports certification under the factual circumstances here.
Each defense witness has confirmed the elements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 are met in this case, and when the jury makes a determination on
Defendants’ liability, that decision will resolve the claims of
all proposed class members simultaneously. This is, to put it
simply, the prototypical case warranting class certification.
On Aug. 14, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased a JetBlue ticket and AGA
travel assistance services on JetBlue's electronic booking path.
JetBlue deceived the Plaintiff, and the other JetBlue Florida
Subclass members about JetBlue's role in the sale of AGA products
on JetBlue's booking path.
JetBlue uniformly portrayed the price of the AGA travel assistance
services as a "pass through" charge (where all the money is
retained by AGA), yet JetBlue in actuality collected a significant
po1iion of the travel assistance charge as a fee.
AGA is a nationwide provider of travel protection plans and offers
its products for sale through a number of Travel Retailers,
including JetBlue.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NJ4fTY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
Ellen Ross Belfer, Esq.
William Burgess, Esq.
HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 630-8304
E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com
ebelfer@hilgersgraben.com
wburgess@hilgersgraben.com
AKUMIN INC: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted leave pursuant to
Section 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to commence a secondary
market misrepresentation action against Akumin Inc., Riadh
Zine-El-Abidine, Stan Dunford, Thomas Davies, Murray Lee, James
Webb, and Mohammad Saleem. The Court also certified the case as a
class action.
Kalloghlian Myers LLP is representing Akumin investors. A copy of
the decision is available here. Formal notice and opt out
information will be issued upon further Order of the Court.
Kalloghlian Myers LLP is a Toronto-based law firm specializing in
investor class actions.
Contacts
Garth Myers
garth@kalloghlianmyers.com
(647) 969-4472 [GN]
ALEX VILLANUEVA: Trial Dates Vacated in Malloy
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD M. MALLOY, v. ALEX
VILLANUEVA, etc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04836-CAS-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Snyder entered an order vacating
trial dates and pretrial deadlines as follows:
-- The Feb. 25, 2025, trial dates are vacated;
-- The February 25, 2025 trial date in Newman is vacated;
-- All pretrial deadlines, including the deadline for Plaintiffs
in
Newman to file a Motion for Class Certification, are vacated;
and
-- The Oct. 28, 2024, Zoom Status Conference re: Settlement
previously set by the Court remains on calendar, along with the
Court the requirement that the Parties submit a status report
one
week before the Oct. 28, 2024, conference with the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xraOzF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin W. Clark, Esq.
LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC
150 South Los Robles Ave., Suite 660
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 545-1925
E-mail: jclark@lbaclaw.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing in Snow Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, et al., v.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order regarding outstanding
sealing motions:
-- Align's requests to seal portions of its briefing and the
record
at the class certification and summary judgement stages of the
Section 2 claims are, again, denied as overbroad.
-- Align may have one more opportunity to narrow its sealing
requests
to truly confidential information and justify the need for
secrecy. But the Court does not anticipate giving Align any
further chances if the next set of filings seeks to seal a
similar
amount of information from the public.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ZyNaM at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Allarity Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALLR)
resulting from allegations that Allarity Therapeutics, Inc. may
have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.
So what: If you purchased Allarity securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27420 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On July 22, 2024, before market hours, Allarity
filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC, in which the
Company disclosed that: "Allarity Therapeutics, Inc. (the
'Company') received a 'Wells Notice' from the Staff of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') relating to the
Company's previously disclosed SEC investigation."
Allarity also revealed that "[t]he Wells Notice relates to the
Company's disclosures regarding meetings with the United States
Food and Drug Administration (the 'FDA') regarding the Company's
NDA [New Drug Application] for Dovitinib or Dovitinib-DRP," and
that "Allarity also understands that three of its former officers
received Wells Notices from the SEC relating to the same conduct."
Further, "[t]he Wells Notice informed the Company that the SEC
Staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the
SEC file an enforcement action against the Company that would
allege certain violations of the federal securities laws."
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ALLSTATE CORP: Class Cert Bid Referred to MagistrateJudge
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN v. The Allstate
Corporation, et al., the Case No. 1:22-cv-05096 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Aug. 26, 2022), Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order
referring
Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Magistrate Judge
Marutollo for a report and recommendation.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Allstate engages in the property and casualty insurance business
and the sale of life, accident, and health insurance products.[CC]
AMAZON WEB: Filing Deadlines in Gladstone Suit Extended to Aug. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANDREA GLADSTONE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00491-TL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Tana
Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, signed the Parties' Stipulated Motion and
Order extending certain deadlines to Aug. 13, 2024.
Pursuant to Judge Lin's Standing Order for All Civil Cases and
Local Civil Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), Defendant Amazon Web Services,
Inc. ("AWS") and Plaintiff Andrea Gladstone jointly move to extend
the deadlines to submit a proposed Protective Order and ESI
Protocol from July 16, 2024, to Aug. 13, 2024.
In addition, AWS moves for a brief extension of the deadline for
AWS to file its answer to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("SAC") from July 16, 2024, to Aug. 13, 2024. AWS has consulted
with the Plaintiff's counsel and the Plaintiff does not object to
this requested relief.
The Court denied AWS's Motion to Dismiss the SAC on July 2, 2024.
The Parties previously jointly proposed submitting a proposed
Protective Order and a proposed Agreement re: Discovery of
Electronically Stored Information ("ESI Protocol") within 14 days
of the Court's ruling on AWS's Motion to Dismiss, which would make
those proposals likewise due on July 16, 2024. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4), AWS's deadline to file its answer
to the SAC was July 16, 2024.
On July 10, 2024, the Parties met and conferred to discuss pretrial
deadlines. Consistent with the Court's Order re: Parties' Joint
Status Report and Order on Motion to Dismiss, the Parties
anticipate submitting a Second Joint Status Report proposing
pretrial deadlines on July 16, 2024.
Given the complexity of this case, the Court's recent order denying
AWS's Motion to Dismiss, and the intervening Independence Day
holiday, AWS requires additional time to prepare its answer to the
SAC. The Parties also have conferred and agree that they require
additional time to meet and confer regarding a proposed Protective
Order and ESI Protocol. Good cause exists for these extensions
based on the complexity of the matter, the current procedural
posture, and pre-planned absences of the Parties and their
counsel.
In light of this, AWS requests that the Court extend to Aug. 13,
2024, AWS's deadline to file its answer to the Plaintiff's SAC. The
Plaintiff does not oppose the request. Further, the Parties jointly
request that the Court modify the Parties' proposed deadline for
submission of a proposed Protective Order and ESI Protocol to Aug.
13, 2024. The Parties request that the Court enter an order
extending existing case deadlines in accordance with this
Stipulated Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Motion and Order dated
July 11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3kx7nycx from
PacerMonitor.com.
Wright A. Noel -- Wright@carsonnoel.com -- CARSON NOEL PLLC, in
Issaquah, WA 98027; Joseph I. Marchese -- JMarchese@bursor.com --
Max S. Roberts -- MRoberts@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., in
New York, NY 10019; Neal J. Deckant -- NDeckant@bursor.com --
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., in Walnut Creek, CA 94596, Counsel for
Plaintiff Andrea Gladstone.
Erin K. Earl -- EEarl@perkinscoie.com -- Ryan Spear --
RyanSpear@perkinscoie.com -- Nicola C. Menaldo --
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com -- Jordan Harris --
JordanHarris@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP, in Seattle,
Washington 98101, Counsel for Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc.
AMAZON.COM: Mahone Class Certification Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE and BRANDON
TOLE, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman entered an order denying the
motion for class certification and denying as moot the Defendants'
motion for leave.
While Mahone and Tole may possess individual claims under USERRA,
they have not convinced the Court that this matter should proceed
on a class basis. Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient
evidence to show commonality, predominance, typicality, and
superiority. That is fatal to their Motion for Class Certification.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all
counsel. Dated July 29, 2024. A United States Senior
As such, the Court finds Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their burden of
both commonality and predominance as to Mahone’s claims. The
Court also finds that Stonebarger’s summation data does not help
identify commonality and predominance.
Based on the record presented, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden on commonality and predominance as to
Mahone’s claims. The court denies certification of Mahone's
claims as to the proposed class and subclasses.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to show commonality and
predominance as to Tole’s claims and it denies the motion to
certify his claims as to both the class and subclasses.
The Court finds that the record contains sufficient evidence to
assess the validity of Stonebarger's summations without the
introduction of this additional report.
The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon mistreated them on account of
their military service in violation of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
The Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify one class and two
subclasses from June 2017 to the present:
Military Employee Class:
"All current and former employees of Amazon who were or are
currently serving in the United States Armed Services or
National
Guard."
Hourly Military Employee Subclass:
"All current and former hourly employees of Amazon who were or
are
currently serving in the United States Armed Services or
National
Guard."
Salaried Military Employee Subclass:
"All current and former salaried employees of Amazon who were
or
are currently serving in the United States Armed Services or
National Guard."
In their supplemental Motion, Plaintiffs have added a new subclass:
Intermittent MLOA Hourly Military Employee Subclass:
"All current and former hourly employees of Amazon who were or
are
currently serving in the United States Armed Services or
National
Guard, and who took Intermittent MLOA while employed by
Amazon."
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wtpl7H at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA TERRELL, v.
AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00653 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Alistair Newbern entered an order granting
joint motion to extend the deadlines for
class-certification-related discovery.
-- The deadline to conclude class-certification-related discovery
and
to file any related motions is Dec. 13, 2024.
-- The deadline to file motions for class certification is Jan.
13,
2025.
-- A telephone conference with the Magistrate Judge is set on
March
25, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.
-- By March 21, 2025, the parties shall file a joint plan for fact
discovery and the setting of remaining case deadlines.
-- The parties state that they are in the process of selecting a
mediator and setting a mediation date. They shall file a joint
statement of their progress in this regard by August 29, 2024.
Ambassador was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes providing employment services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmETvr at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Celaya Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REFUGIO CELAYA, DONNA
CHARNEY, DAHL WILLIS, SHELLEY WILLIS, and CAROLYN WOOD,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I. and AMERICAN FAMILY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01002-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the proposed class, defined as:
"All American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. ("AFMICSI")
or
American Family Insurance Company ("AFIC") policyholders (or
their
lawful assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for
property located in Arizona and Wisconsin; and (2) for which
AFMICSI or AFIC accepted coverage and then chose to calculate
actual cash value exclusively pursuant to the replacement cost
less depreciation methodology and not any other methodology,
such
as fair market value; and (3) which resulted in an actual cash
value payment during the class period from which non-material
depreciation was withheld from the policyholder; or which
should
have resulted in an actual cash value payment but for the
withholding of non-material depreciation causing the loss to
drop
below the applicable deductible, for the maximum limitations
period as may be allowed by law and arguments of counsel.
In this definition, "non-material depreciation" means
application
of either the "depreciate removal," "depreciate non-material"
and/or "depreciate O&P" option settings within Xactimate (TM)
software.
The class excludes any claims for which the applicable limits
of
insurance were exhausted by the initial actual cash value
payment.
The class also excludes any claims, or portions of claims,
arising
under labor depreciation permissive policy forms, i.e., those
forms and endorsements expressly permitting the "depreciation"
of
"labor" within the text of the policy form, unless the use of
those forms violates the law of the respective states at issue.
For structures located in Arizona, the class period only includes
policyholders with claims having a date of loss on or after
November 2, 2014.
For residential structures in Wisconsin, the class period only
includes policyholders with claims having a date of loss on or
after April 2, 2019.
Finally, for commercial structures located in Wisconsin, the class
period only includes policyholders with claims having a date of
loss on or after November 2, 2018.
-- appointing Plaintiffs and Amy Hall as class representatives,
-- appointing J. Brandon McWherter, Erik D. Peterson, and T.
Joseph
Snodgrass as class counsel and
-- providing all other relief requested that is just and to which
Plaintiffs or the class may be entitled.
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s4UHuk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
Kelly A. Lelo, Esq.
SNODGRASS LAW LLC
100 S. Fifth St., Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 448-2600
E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
klelo@snodgrass-law.com
- and -
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
McWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
109 Westpark Drive, Suite 260
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES
110 West Vine Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 614-1957
E-mail: erik@eplo.law
AMERICAN PHOENIX: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTE CHARLES, v. AMERICAN
PHOENIX, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00255-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference
order:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: Sept. 17, 2024
2. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional Jan. 31, 2025
certification of the class:
3. Disclosure of class experts:
Plaintiff: May 21, 2025
Defendants: June 18, 2025
4. Motions & Briefs to Certify/Decertify July 16, 2025
Classes:
5. Disclosure of liability experts:
Plaintiffs: Nov. 18, 2025
Defendants: Dec. 23, 2025
6. Deadline for filing dispositive Jan. 27, 2026
motions:
7. Settlement Letters: May 29, 2026
American Phoenix provides rubber mixing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jT0G5L at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMY PECHACEK: Discovery in Bemke Closes Jan. 15, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bemke, Brian, et al., v.
Pechacek, Amy, Case No. 3:21-cv-00560 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Sept. 7,
2021), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered a scheduling order:
Discovery is open and closes: Jan. 15, 2025
Plaintiff shall submit a supplemental Jan. 22, 2025
brief on class certification and an
opening brief on remedies by:
Defendant shall respond on these issues by: Feb. 21, 2025
Plaintiff shall reply by: March 10, 2025
Settlement letters due: June 13, 2025
Final pretrial filings due: June 27, 2025
responses due: July 18, 2025
First final pretrial conference set for: Aug. 5, 2025
Second final pretrial conference set for: Aug. 12, 2025
Bench trial set for: Aug. 18, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act
(ADA).[CC]
APPHARVEST INC: Counsel Awarded $1.4MM in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York awards Lead Counsel, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP,
attorneys' fees for $1,212,500, and payment of litigation expenses
for $166,987 in the lawsuit entitled In re AppHarvest Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-07985-LJL (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court for hearing on July 11, 2024, (the
"Settlement Hearing") on Lead Counsel's Unopposed Motion for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
(the "Fee and Expense Application").
Judge Liman notes that this Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement filed
with the Court on Feb. 20, 2024. The Settlement has created a fund
of $4,850,000 in cash, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation,
and numerous Settlement Class Members, who submit acceptable Claim
Forms, will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of
Lead Counsel.
Notice of Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application was given to
all Settlement Class Members, who could be identified with
reasonable effort. Judge Liman finds the form and method of
notifying the Settlement Class of the Fee and Expense Application,
including by providing true and accurate copies of all papers
submitted in support of the Fee and Expense Application on the
website created by the Claims Administrator for the purposes of the
Settlement, satisfied the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution
(including the Due Process Clause), and Section 21D(a)(7) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(7), as
amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the "PSLRA"), constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances; and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice
to all persons entitled thereto.
The Court awards Lead Counsel, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, attorneys'
fees in the amount of $1,212,500, or 25% of the Settlement Fund),
and payment of litigation expenses in the amount of $166,987.77,
which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable.
In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that,
among other things, Lead Counsel devoted 2,439.93 hours in
professional time, with a lodestar value of $1,609,970.25, and
$166,987.77 in litigation expenses to achieve the Settlement.
Judge Liman says any appeal or challenge affecting this Order
Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses will in no way
disturb or affect the finality of any judgment entered by the
Court. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the
Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, this
Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ynhj74ke from PacerMonitor.com.
APPHARVEST INC: Court Okays Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation of Settlement
Proceeds in the lawsuit captioned In re AppHarvest Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-07985-LJL (S.D.N.Y.).
Judge Liman notes that this Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, (the
"Stipulation") filed with the Court on Feb. 20, 2024. The
Settlement has created a fund of $4,850,000 in cash, pursuant to
the terms of the Stipulation, and numerous Settlement Class
Members, who submit acceptable Claim Forms, will benefit from the
Settlement created by the efforts of Lead Counsel.
Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and
adequate notice was directed to persons, who are Settlement Class
Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising
them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to object
thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was afforded to Persons
who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with respect to the
Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of
Allocation.
The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the
calculation of the claims and claimants that is set forth in the
Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") disseminated to
Settlement Class Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon
which to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class
Members.
The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set
forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xjcw9wf from PacerMonitor.com.
APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Stay Trade-In Program Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion to stay a
class action against Apple Canada Inc., which involved an alleged
breach of provincial consumer protection statutes and the
Competition Act through its trade-in and recycling program.
The plaintiff, Boris Grossman, had requested a stay under Sections
106 and 138 of the Courts of Justice Act, pending the final
determination of the decision currently under appeal in Lewis v.
Uber Canada Inc., 2023 ONSC 6190. Apple opposed this stay motion
and submitted a scheduling motion under s. 4.1 of the Class
Proceedings Act, 1992, seeking to have its motion for summary
judgment heard before the motion for certification. Grossman
opposed the scheduling motion.
The Grossman action involved Apple's trade-in and recycling
program, where consumers received credit for trading in old Apple
devices when purchasing new ones. Grossman alleged that Apple
overcharged consumers by not providing a sales tax credit on the
trade-in value as required under s. 153(4) of the Excise Tax Act.
Grossman claimed Apple breached provincial consumer protection
statutes and the Competition Act and committed torts of negligence
and conversion.
In Lewis, the plaintiff sought certification of a class action
against Uber Eats, alleging that Uber should have paid the sales
tax on items purchased using promotional discount codes. The court
in Lewis ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim,
stating that it was a statute-barred tax recovery action and that
the plaintiff did not establish a cause of action under the Class
Proceedings Act. This decision is under appeal.
Grossman argued for a stay pending the outcome of the Lewis appeal,
asserting that the jurisdictional issues in Lewis are relevant to
the Grossman action. The court, however, found no certainty that
the Lewis appeal would resolve the statutory jurisdiction issues
raised in Grossman's case. The court noted that the Lewis appeal
might not address the statutory jurisdiction issue and that other
unrelated grounds in Apple's summary judgment motion could
independently dispose of the Grossman action.
The Superior Court emphasized that stays are not typically granted
solely because another case on unrelated facts raises the same
legal issue. The court also highlighted that Apple's summary
judgment motion addresses several grounds, including statutory
jurisdiction and applicability of s. 153(4) of the ETA and statute
limitations under the Limitations Act, 2002, which could resolve
the case without considering the outcome of the Lewis appeal.
The court concluded that Apple should not be required to delay its
summary judgment motion pending the Lewis appeal, which could
result in significant and unjustified delays. As such, the court
dismissed Grossman's stay motion and granted Apple's scheduling
motion, ordering the summary judgment motion to be heard before the
certification motion. [GN]
APPLE INC: Seeks To File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by and through
next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN
LEBLOND, PATRICIA ORRIS, and ANGELA STEVENS on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v.
APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order maintaining and granting Apple
leave to file under seal select documents related to the Parties'
class certification briefing and Apple's motions concerning
experts.
If Apple's confidential information were disclosed, Apple's
competitors would gain insights into trade secrets and other
confidential business information and decision-making processes
regarding the design and implementation of technologies within the
Photos app, which Apple developed through substantial effort and
the investment of significant resources.
Such a disclosure would harm Apple by giving its competitors an
unwarranted competitive advantage and devaluing Apple's
intellectual property, which it took years to develop and refine
and the details of which Apple has endeavored to keep secret.
Apple's request is narrowly tailored to balance the public's right
of access to court documents and protection of Apple's highly
confidential and valuable trade secrets and business information.
On June 16, 2021, the Court entered a protective order governing
the handling of confidential discovery materials.
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d04F0H at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
Katie Viggiani, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
E-mail: ppatel@mofo.com
kviggiani@mofo.com
- and -
Raj N. Shah, Esq.
Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com
eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
AUTO CLUB: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Barkel-Williams,
Robert C. Semczak, Guardian of the Estate of Theresa Michalak, and
Maria Aprile, Personal Representative Hon. Denise Page Hood of the
Estate of Janet Aprile, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, v. Auto Club Group, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-10403-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(1)-
(4), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) on behalf of themselves and all
others
similarly situated persons, and
-- appointing class representatives and lead counsel pursuant to
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g),
The Plaintiffs move for class certification of the following class:
"All people who submitted Michigan No-fault attendant care
claims
that were approved and paid by Defendants as non-agency
provided
care claims from Feb. 8, 2018 to the present, except that any
payments received by a member of the above class while the
person
was represented by counsel are excluded from class damages."
All class members submitted attendant care claims to AAA for
services performed by friends or family members, which were
reviewed, approved, and paid by AAA pursuant to the same standards,
including calculating and paying a straight time hourly wage for
the hours approved, without any premium for overtime
The Plaintiffs are challenging AAA's failure to pay overtime, and
the policies and procedures causing that result, as an unjust
enrichment claim. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs request the Court
certify the unjust enrichment claim for class wide resolution under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Auto Club provides automobile insurance coverage for consumers in
several states, including Michigan.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yChHWC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason T. Thompson, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
- and -
Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq.
LISS & ANDREWS, PC
39400 Woodward Ave, Ste 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 647-9700
E-mail: nandrews@lissfirm.com
AUTOMOBILE ACCEPTANCE: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, subscribing to Policy Nos. SUA WS20318-2103,
SUA WS20318-2002, and SUA WS20318-1901, et al., v. AUTOMOBILE
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02030-DDC
(D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Crabtree entered an order that the
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that they have no
duty to defend or indemnify AAC in the underlying lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs also are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
against defendant AAC's counterclaim. The court grants plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment. This conclusion renders the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings moot, so
the court denies
The plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is
denied as moot.
The plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
The court sets a status conference in the case for Friday, Aug. 30,
2024.
The court thus declines to decide whether plaintiffs are entitled
to rescission because, quite simply, their Motion for Summary
Judgment doesn't ask for it. So, the plaintiffs' request to rescind
the policies remains pending for trial.
This case is an insurance coverage dispute. At bottom, the parties
disagree whether plaintiffs must defend and indemnify claims
arising in a class action lawsuit against their insured. The story
begins with the emergence of that underlying class action.
In May 2015, defendant Automobile Acceptance Corporation—AAC for
short—sued defendant Eugene Nichols in Missouri state court,
seeking to collect a deficiency balance from Nichols.
In August 2016, defendant Nichols counterclaimed on behalf of a
putative class, alleging defendant AAC had repossessed and sold
consumers’ collateral without mailing them proper presale and
post-sale notices, thus violating the Uniform Commercial Code. The
same month, defendant AAC notified an insurer, Auto-Owners
Insurance Company, of defendant Nichols’s class counterclaim. The
Missouri state court certified the class in September 2022.
In May 2015, defendant AAC filed a Petition for Deficiency Balance
against defendant Nichols in Missouri state court.
Nichols sought to represent a class of similarly situated consumers
to whom AAC allegedly had sent pre- and post-sale notices of
disposition of collateral and assessed deficiency/surplus balances
that did not comply with the Uniform Commercial Code.
Nichols moved to certify the class in March 2021.
The Missouri court certified the class on September 30, 2022.
AAC specializes in automobile financial services for consumers with
all types of credit.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ehC1Bx at no extra
charge.[CC]
AXT INC: Grubb Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Nowakowski Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG NOWAKOWSKI, v. AXT
INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02778-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order:
-- granting Charles Grubb's motion for appointment as lead
Plaintiff
and approval of counsel;
-- deeming mandar Patterkar's motion for appointment withdrawn;
and
-- vacating hearing.
The Rosen Law Firm shall be responsible for the overall conduct of
the litigation on behalf of the putative class and shall have sole
authority to do the following:
1. Determine and present to the Court and opposing parties the
position of the lead plaintiff and putative class members on
all
matters arising during the instant litigation;
2. Enter into stipulations with opposing counsel as necessary
for
the conduct of the litigation; and
3. Coordinate the initiation and conduct of discovery on behalf
of
the lead Plaintiff and putative class members consistent with
the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Grubb, who is the only member of the putative class who seeks to
represent the class, has submitted evidence demonstrating he has
incurred a financial loss as a result of defendants' alleged
violations and consequently, the Court finds he has the greatest
financial stake in the outcome.
The Complaint in the action asserts claims under the Securities Act
of 1934. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, in an
action asserting claims under said Act, a district court "shall
appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported
plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of
adequately representing the interests of class members."
AXT designs, develops, manufactures, and distributes compound and
single element semiconductor substrates.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=anXUze at no extra
charge.[CC]
BARILLA AMERICA: Must File Responsive Declaration by August 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sinatro, et al., v.
Barilla America, Inc., the Case No. 4:22-cv-03460 (N.D. Cal., Filed
June 11, 2022), Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order that by
Aug. 5, 2024, the Defendant shall file either a responsive
declaration or a statement of non-opposition to the motions to
seal, along with proposed orders on the motions to seal.
The Plaintiffs filed administrative motions to seal on the ground
that their reply briefs in support of their motions for class
certification and motion to exclude Defendant's expert contain
information designated as confidential by Defendant.
-- The Defendant has not filed responsive statements and/or
declarations as required by Civil Local Rules 79-5(f)(3) and
79-
5(c)(1) establishing that the information is sealable.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Barilla is a family owned Pasta company based out of Parma
Italy.[CC]
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Discovery in Williams Continued to August 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE WILLIAMS, KHALIL
WHITE, JOSEPH NETT, LAKISHA SWIFT, CAMERON ROGERS and SHEPHERD YORK
in Their Individual and Representative Capacities on Behalf of a
Class of All Persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08698-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fernando Olguin entered an order modifying the scheduling order to
continue deadlines for discovery and class certification motion:
(1) The Discovery Deadline, which is currently July 29, 2024,
shall
be continued to Aug. 20, 2024; and
(2) The filing deadline for the joint motion for class
certification which is currently Aug. 30, 2024, shall be
continued to Oct. 18, 2024.
The Defendants include SANDRA SPAGNOLI, formerly sued as Doe 1;
DOMINICK RIVETTI formerly sued as DOE 2, CAPTAIN SCOTT DOWLING,
SERGEANT DALE DRUMMOND [FORMERLY D.D.], OFFICER JON ILUSORIO
[FORMERLY J.I.], OFFICER JONATHAN DE LA CRUZ [FORMERLY J.D.], SGT.
BILLY FAIR [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 3], OFFICER JAMES KRUG [FORMERLY
SUED AS DOE 4], OFFICER BILLY BLAIR [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 5].
OFFICER JERRY WHITTAKER [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 6], OFFICER JESSE
LYGA [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 7], and DOES 8-10, inclusive, all sued
in their individual and official capacities.
Beverly Hills is a city in California's Los Angeles County. Home to
many Hollywood stars, it features the upscale shopping street of
Rodeo Drive.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xGwHhA at no extra
charge.[CC]
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Certifies Subclasses in ADA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Bonvissuto of McKnights Senior Living reports that a
long-running California class action lawsuit filed against
Brookdale Senior Living will go forward early next year after a
judge granted a motion to certify three community-based subclasses
in the case.
A Brookdale spokesperson told McKnight's Senior Living that the
company was pleased with some of the court's decisions and will
continue to defend itself against the allegations with which it
does not agree.
In the 2017 Stiner vs. Brookdale Senior Living case, current and
former residents of Brookdale's California assisted living
communities sued the country's largest senior living company,
alleging elder financial abuse and widespread violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The communities were former
Emeritus Senior Living properties rebranded under Brookdale after
the companies merged in 2014.
The complaint alleged that understaffing prevented residents'
activities of daily living needs from being met. The complaint
alleged medication errors and lack of clean clothing, showers,
nutritious food and supervision.
The residents also alleged that Brookdale violated the ADA and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by not addressing multiple
barriers in their rooms and throughout the communities, by
restricting the number of people in wheelchairs who can participate
in weekly outings, and by not providing a sufficient number of
caregivers for residents with cognitive and other impairments.
The complaint also alleged that Brookdale violated the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, committing elder financial abuse and fraud.
The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in January.
Court certifies classes
July 22, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify the
subclasses at Brookdale San Ramon, an assisted living community in
San Ramon; Brookdale Scotts Valley, an assisted living community in
Scotts Valley; and Brookdale Brookhurst, an assisted living and
memory care community in Westminster, to pursue declaratory and
injunctive relief. But the court also denied a motion certifying
the San Ramon, Scotts Valley, Brookhurst, Fountaingrove and
Brookdale Tracy, an assisted living and memory care community in
Tracy, facility-based subclasses seeking statutory damages for lack
of predominance. It also denied a motion to certify a proposed
Brookdale Sunwest in Hemet subclass for lack of numerosity, or a
large enough class of affected individuals.
Further, the courts granted in part and denied in part Brookdale's
motion for clarification of a March 30, 2023, order. The court
confirmed that its 2023 order excluded manually powered wheelchair
users from the wheelchair and scooter user subclass definition but
did not limit that definition to include only current residents.
That decision also denied certification of a class of more than
7,000 residents for disability access claims related to ADA
claims.
A Brookdale spokesperson told McKnight's Senior Living that it was
pleased with the court's decision denying the majority of the
plaintiffs' requests related to the ADA claims. The company also
said it was pleased with the court's March 2023 decision denying
the plaintiffs' requests related to the alleged Consumer Protection
Act claims.
"Brookdale continues to disagree with all remaining allegations
asserted and will continue to defend," the spokesperson said.
"Brookdale is proud of the quality care and services our employees
provide to residents."
Brookdale has faced several lawsuits in recent years based on
allegations related to the quality of its services and company
representations of those services to the public. A class action
lawsuit filed in 2020 accused the company of "chronically
insufficient staffing" at its communities to meet financial
benchmarks.
The company also faced a shareholder lawsuit, tossed by a federal
judge earlier this year, alleging misconduct by company executives
trying to meet financial targets, causing the company to allegedly
intentionally underestimate data used for staffing algorithms. [GN]
BSV CLAIMS: Appeals Tribunal Certifies Investor Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A GBP10 billion BSV investor class action lawsuit against digital
asset exchanges has been approved by the United Kingdom's
Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), making it one of the largest
collective legal actions to be approved in U.K. history.
The lawsuit is BSV Claims Limited v Bittylicious Limited & Others.
Brought on behalf of over 200,000 BSV investors, it accuses a group
of prominent digital asset exchanges -- Binance, Kraken, Shapeshift
and Bittylicious -- of colluding to delist BSV from their platforms
without good reason, which allegedly had the effect of "distorting,
preventing or restricting" competition within the United Kingdom in
violation of the Competition Act 1998.
In late July, the CAT granted certification to the claim, meaning
it will now proceed to trial.
Case background
The four defendant exchanges decided to delist BSV in April 2019.
At the time, their founders and/or the exchanges' official twitter
accounts indicated that they were doing so as retaliation against
Craig Wright's claim to be Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto; at
the time, Wright was a leading technical figure within the BSV
community.
For example, Changpeng Zhao, the disgraced founder and former CEO
of Binance, tweeted a that "Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of
this sh#t, we delist!" and then, later:
"I normally don't' like to get involved in debates, pick sides,
etc. But this is going too far. I also didn't' like the fact that
the fork caused BTC to drop below $6k, which caused pain to many in
the industry."
When Binance formally delisted BSV, Zhao then retweeted the
announcement and urged his audience to "do the right thing."
Erik Voorhees, CEO of Shapeshift, tweeted an announcement that his
exchange would be following Binance's lead, saying that the
platform "stand[s] with @binance and CZ's sentiments."
Kraken put up a Twitter poll on April 15, 2019, asking if they
should delist BSV, and Zhao responded by assuring his followers
that Kraken CEO Jesse Powell would do it and that the 'industry is
tighter and stronger than you think.'
Kraken confirmed it was delisting BSV a day later. Bittylicious
piled on that same day, saying it was delisting BSV "to show
solidarity against the toxic litigious environment in the BSV
space."
Provisional expert reports submitted in the case estimate that if
the allegations are true, the class of BSV investors suffered
almost GBP10 billion in damage due to both the immediate effect
that the delistings had on the price of BSV and the 'forgone
growth' resulting from BSV losing the opportunity to develop into a
'top tier' digital asset.
Section 2 of the U.K.'s Competition Act 1998 prohibits any
agreements which are made that has "as their object or effect the
prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the
United Kingdom." It is under that provision that the collective
proceedings had been brought to the CAT.
BSV investor suit given green light
In the United Kingdom, class actions (known as 'collective
proceedings orders' or CPOs) brought in the Competition Appeal
Tribunal must first be 'certified' by the Tribunal. This involves
an assessment of the suitability of proposed class representative
and the class itself, together with the consideration of any
application made by the defendants to strike out the claim.
In this case, at the certification hearing in June 2024 Binance had
resisted certification and alternatively sought to strike out a
large part of the claim. In particular, it argued that the BSV
investor class should not be able to claim damage beyond the point
at which they were aware of the delistings because under law they
were required to take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses --
in other words, they should have sold their BSV at that point and
purchased an equivalent digital currency on the market. If it had
been accepted by the CAT, this would have effectively fixed the
amount of damages able to be claimed by the affected BSV holders to
the date of delisting, ignoring the subsequent effect on BSV's
price.
In a judgment granting certification, the CAT had no difficulty in
finding that the standard for approving the claim had been met. It
also rejected Binance's strike-out attempt, finding that this
determination involves findings of fact that must be made at trial
and as such was not appropriate for a pre-trial strike-out.
However, the CAT also wrote that the question of whether BSV
holders should have mitigated their losses in the manner argued by
Binance would likely benefit from a preliminary issue trial,
meaning the question may get its own trial before the core trial
begins. That is likely to be the next episode in BSV Claims Ltd v
Bittylicious and others. [GN]
BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks to File Opposition Docs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC.
and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the
administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5
to file under seal highlighted copies of the Opposition to
Defendants' motion to deny class certification and declaration of
Steven N. Williams in opposition to the Defendants' motion to deny
class certification.
ByteDance is a technology company operating a range of content
platforms.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ee7UvS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kai'Ree K. Howard, Esq.
STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C.
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 697-1509
E-mail: swilliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com
khoward@stevenwilliamslaw.com
CAAIR INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR COPELAND, et al.,
v. C.A.A.I.R., Inc., et. al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00564-SEH-JFJ (N.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Sara Hill entered class certification
scheduling order as follows:
1. N/A The deadline to amend the pleadings has
lapsed.
No parties may be added and no pleadings may
be
amended except for good cause and upon
written
Order of this Court.
2. July 28, 2025 Class Certification discovery cutoff.
3. May 1, 2025 Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Expert Witnesses
and
Summary of Opinions.
4. July 7, 2025 Defendants' Disclosure of Expert Witnesses
and
Summary of Opinions.
5. Aug. 25, 2025 Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification.
6. Sept. 30, 2025 Defendants' Response to Motion for Rule 23
Class
Certification.
7. Oct. 20, 2025 Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification.
8. [To be set] Hearing on motion for class certification.
CAAIR is an addiction resource center that provides in-house
counseling services to help alcoholics and addicts in recovery.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8K2o2M at no extra
charge.[CC]
CALIFORNIA: District Court Denies Bid to Stay in Coleman v. Newsom
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California denies the Defendants'
motion to stay in the lawsuit styled RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.).
The Defendants have moved to stay this Court's June 25, 2024 and
June 27, 2024 orders, requiring them to deposit fines into the
Court's Registry and certain Defendants to certify monthly that
they have reviewed the Defendants' monthly mental health staffing
vacancy report and "include a summary of the steps they have taken
in the preceding month to address mental health understaffing in
the CDCR prisons." The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and the
Defendants have replied.
On June 25, 2024, the Court found three Defendants in contempt of
court for noncompliance with the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 order
requiring remediation of ongoing mental health understaffing in the
prisons of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR). The three Defendants are CDCR Secretary Jeff
Macomber, Undersecretary for Health Care Services for CDCR Diana
Toche, D.D.S., and Deputy Director of the Statewide Mental Health
Program for CDCR Amar Mehta, M.D.
The Court also ordered the Defendants to deposit into the Court's
Registry one hundred eleven million nine hundred thirty-nine
thousand two hundred forty-four dollars ($111,939,244) within
thirty days from the date the order was filed and thereafter to
deposit additional accumulated fines on a monthly basis. The Court
clarified that the requirements of the Oct. 10, 2017 order apply to
all Defendants in this action, including the other three named
Defendants, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Director of
California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) Stephanie Clendenin,
and Director of the California Department of Finance Joe
Stephenshaw.
The Court required these Defendants to forthwith and continuing
until further order of the Court take all steps within their
respective authority to enable CDCR to come into complete
compliance with the staffing ratios in CDCR's 2009 Staffing Plan
and the maximum ten percent vacancy rate required by the court's
June 13, 2002 order. The Court required Defendants Newsom,
Clendenin, and Stephenshaw to certify monthly that they have
reviewed the Defendants' monthly mental health staffing vacancy
report and "include a summary of the steps they have taken in the
preceding month to address mental health understaffing in the CDCR
prisons."
The six named Defendants in this action are all successor
defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. As the court
has explained, the contempt findings reflect the failure of CDCR
Defendants in these roles to comply with the Court's orders over
many years. Similarly, Defendants Newsom, Clendenin, and
Stephenshaw also carry the obligations imposed on their
predecessors by the Court's orders.
Within hours on the same day the Court issued its order, June 25,
2024, the Defendants filed a notice of appeal from the order.
On June 27, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' request for
clarification of aspects of the June 25, 2024 order and to extend
the time for filing of monthly deposits and the required
certifications to "ten days from the filing of each monthly
staffing report." On June 28, 2024, the Defendants filed an amended
notice of appeal, adding the June 27, 2024 order to their appeal.
The Defendants filed the pending motion to stay on July 2, 2024.
That same day, the Court set a briefing schedule on the motion to
stay and deferred ruling on certain alternative requests in the
motion. On July 5, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation and
proposed order for modification and stay of the June 25, 2024 and
June 27, 2024 orders.
On July 8, 2024, the Court set a status conference for July 10,
2024, to discuss the July 5, 2024 stipulation and extended the
deadline for the Defendants to deposit fines that accumulated by
May 2024 to July 12, 2024. On the same day, the defendants filed
the first set of required monthly certifications following the June
2024 monthly vacancy report.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
temporarily stayed the latter monthly certification requirement
until July 12, 2024, shortly after the Court already had extended
the deadline. The Court held the status conference to review the
parties' stipulation on July 10, 2024.
On July 12, 2024, taking account of its discussion with the
parties, the Court further extended the deadline for deposit of the
fines accumulated by May 2024 to July 26, 2024, and also signaled
that going forward Defendant Clendenin would be relieved of her
obligation to file the certifications and summaries required by the
June 25, 2024 order. Also on July 12, 2024, the Court issued an
order approving the parties' stipulation in part and otherwise
disapproving the stipulation.
Specifically, the Court set a further briefing schedule on the
Defendants' motion to stay, confirmed the extended deadline for
deposit of the fines that accumulated by May 2024, exempted
Director Clendenin from the certification requirement, approved the
parties' agreement to replace defendant Newsom's monthly
certification requirement with that of a senior official in his
office, and approved the parties' agreement that the certification
requirement would remain in place unless or until stayed by the
Court. On July 15, 2024, and July 17, 2024, the parties filed the
briefing required by the July 12, 26 2024 order.
In support of their motion to stay, the Defendants contend they
have a substantial case for relief on the merits of their challenge
to the Court's contempt findings. They contend that the record
shows that both before and after the evidentiary hearing, the
Defendants have taken all reasonable steps to ameliorate the
staffing issues CDCR faces. They add, among other things, that the
certification order "arguably requires" the Governor and other
state officials to disclose privileged information.
The Plaintiffs oppose defendants' stay request as to the
certification requirements, contending that the "asserted harm" to
state sovereignty and separation of powers asserted by the
Defendants "is not irreparable as a matter of law." The Plaintiffs
contend, among other things, that the harm asserted by the
Defendants is "far outweighed" by the harm to the plaintiff class
caused by ongoing mental health understaffing.
Judge Mueller finds that the Defendants have not made an adequate
showing of irreparable harm to support their motion to stay.
Because the Defendants have not made the requisite threshold
showing of irreparable harm, the Court "may not issue" the
requested stay. In an abundance of caution, the Court exercises its
discretion to review the second "most critical" factor, and finds
the Defendants have failed to make the required "strong" showing
they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. For all
these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' July 2, 2024 motion
to stay.
The Defendants ask the Court to waive the supersedeas bond
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). The
Plaintiffs do not oppose this request in the event the Court stays
its order.
Because the Defendants have requested a waiver of the supersedeas
bond instead of posting one, Judge Mueller says the question of the
propriety of a stay is strictly within the Court's discretion.
For all these reasons, the Court declines to waive the supersedeas
bond requirement. This part of the Defendants' motion is denied
without prejudice to its renewal for approval of a supersedeas bond
in a particular amount with full justification, but without any
further delays. Any renewal of the motion is of course subject to
full compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Accordingly, Judge Mueller denies the Defendants' July 2, 2024
motion to stay and for waiver of supersedeas bond.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/568z36za from PacerMonitor.com.
CAPULET FEST: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Perreault, writing for TicketNews, reports that Capulet Fest
promised a weekend full of performances from top rock acts, with
vendors, food trucks, and camping options, but ticketholders were
met with a significantly smaller venue, no camping, limited vendor
and food options, and sets from less than half of the original
lineup. After a month of silence from the promoter and no answers
regarding refunds, the festival has been slammed with a class
action lawsuit.
The proposed class action false advertising lawsuit alleges that
the organizer of Capulet Fest, defendants Capulet Entertainment,
LLC and Estevan Vega, are responsible for refunding thousands of
ticketholders who paid for a three-day outdoor music festival.
Throughout the 30-page lawsuit, the plaintiffs say they were told
the festival would include an "unforgettable weekend of excitement"
with performances from more than 50 rock and metal acts. Instead,
the suit claims the event was "marred by disorganization, a
radical, last-minute venue change, performances that were
inexplicably cut short, and the outright cancellation of an entire
day of performances."
Originally, Capulet Fest was set to take place from Friday, June 28
to Sunday, June 30 with headlining performances from August Burns
Red, Skillet, and Nothing More, as well as appearances from notable
acts in the scene like Sleep Theory, Blessthefall, Every Avenue,
Gideon, Senses Fail, and Flyleaf's Lacey Sturm. However, just a day
before the event kicked-off, chaos ensued; promoter Capulet
Entertainment announced a last-minute move to The Webster in
Hartford -- a significant smaller venue -- and bands began to fall
off the lineup.
As hours went on, fans were left in a state of limbo; questions
remained unanswered regarding camping capabilities, VIP parking
passes, and meet and greets with artists. Many fans made the
decision not to attend the festival, leaving them out hundreds of
dollars, and vendors were unable to make a fraction of what they
would have at the original venue. Then, Sunday's edition was
completely called-off after Capulet Entertainment failed to pay The
Webster.
There have been no announcements regarding refunds, and following a
"goodbye" post the last night of the festival, Capulet Fest's
official Facebook page has been deleted. After receiving around 60
complaints, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced an
investigation into the three-day festival and its promoter, calling
the situation "outrageous."
The class action alleges that the defendant had no intention to
issue refunds for ticketholders, despite the fact that the
organizer "failed to deliver on their contractual obligations,
thereby breaching their contract and deceiving thousands of
consumers in New England." The lawsuit is looking to cover all
individuals who purchased tickets to Capulet Fest.
TicketNews was on-scene during Capulet Fest 2024.[GN]
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin's Bid to Re-Offer 30(b)(6) Witness Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN FLODIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL
GARDEN & PET COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel
the Defendants to re-offer a 30(b)(6) witness.
Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
notices or subpoenas directed to an organization.
The parties filed a joint discovery letter ("JDL") in which
Plaintiffs John Flodin and Aaron Brand seek to compel Defendants
Central Garden & Pet Co. ("Central") and Breeder's Choice Pet
Foods, Inc. ("Breeder") to re-offer a 30(b)(6) witness, and also
seek an order limiting defense counsel's objections in future
depositions.
In their Third Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants' product labeling falsely represents
that their "AvoDerm" pet food products included avocado as an
ingredient and that the avocado was sourced from California, when
in fact: 1) the ingredient was a "dried meal/powder" with avocado
making up only a small percentage, and 2) the avocados were sourced
from Mexico or other foreign countries, not California.
The Plaintiffs served an amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to
Central with 33 topics. Central offered the testimony of Victoria
Mann, its current V.P. of Sales Pet Specialty. The Plaintiffs argue
that Mann was unprepared and did not provide adequate testimony on
Topics 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 26. They request that the Defendants
re-produce a 30(b)(6) witness to testify as to those topics.
The Plaintiffs also argue that Central's counsel made speaking
objections, acted as an intermediary to assist Mann in interpreting
questions, and improperly instructed Mann not to answer certain
questions. The Plaintiffs request an order limiting defense counsel
to objecting to form and privilege in future depositions.
The Defendants respond that Mann was prepared and provided adequate
testimony on the noticed topics. As a compromise, the Defendants
offer to answer written discovery requests about Topics 1-2, 4-6,
8, and 26. The Defendants contend that a limiting order is
unnecessary because the objections made by defense counsel were
appropriate.
The Court ordered the parties to file Mann's deposition transcript
with highlighted excerpts to support their positions.
Judge Ryu finds that the Defendants failed to meet their duty to
produce a deponent with sufficient knowledge of Topics 1, 2, 4, 5,
6, and 26. The Defendants are ordered to promptly produce an
adequately prepared deponent(s) to testify on these topics. Judge
Ryu finds the Defendants' deponent adequately responded to
questions on Topic 8.
Rule 30(c)(2) governs objections that counsel can make during a
deposition.
The Plaintiffs argue that a limiting order is necessary because
defense counsel made improper speeches, improperly instructed the
witness not to answer certain questions, and acted as an improper
intermediary for the witness. The Defendants assert that defense
counsel's objections were "short and succinct," and he "only
instructed Ms. Mann not to answer where questions sought privileged
information, were manifestly irrelevant, or were designed to
harass."
Judge Ryu finds that review of the transcript reveals that defense
counsel Rothstein's conduct violated Rule 30(c)(2). Judge Ryu says
Rothstein repeatedly interrupted the Plaintiffs' counsel with
argumentative and suggestive objections. Rothstein's conduct
interfered with the elicitation of testimony and disrupted the
orderly flow of the deposition, and also amounted to attempts to
coach the witness. Rothstein also improperly instructed Mann not to
answer questions.
The Plaintiffs' counsel showed an exhibit to Mann in which he
merged two exhibits (which had already been presented in the
deposition) into one document so that the two were side by side,
Judge Ryu says. Rothstein instructed Mann not to answer any
questions about it and required Fox to present the documents as
standalone exhibits before allowing the deposition to proceed. The
Defendants appear to contend that merging the exhibits into one
document was a bad faith tactic by the Plaintiffs intended to
mislead the witness.
Even if this warranted an instruction not to answer, which it does
not, Judge Ryu says the Defendants do not explain how the merged
document was misleading. Rothstein's instruction was improper and
falls into the pattern of disruptive behavior he displayed
throughout the deposition.
The Court admonishes Rothstein for his unacceptable conduct in
defending the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court issues this
limiting order for all future depositions in this case: deposition
objections may be made only where required to preserve the
objections.
Speaking objections or those calculated to coach the deponent are
prohibited, Judge Ryu holds. Counsel may instruct a deponent not to
answer a question only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to
enforce a limitation directed by the Court, or to present a motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(3).
Judge Ryu adds that counsel will not engage in any conduct during a
deposition that would not be allowed in the presence of a judicial
officer.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ysrws7z from PacerMonitor.com.
CEPTON INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Koito Manufacturing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Cepton, Inc. (Nasdaq: CPTN), relating to its proposed
merger Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Under the terms of the
agreement, Cepton shareholders will receive $3.17 in cash per share
of common stock they own.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Must Designate Expert Witness on Aug. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVENAN MAHARAJ,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00064-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Torres
entered an order following discovery conference:
1. If Defendant elects to use an expert witness to respond to
the
July 2 Report, Defendant must designate that expert witness
on
or before Aug. 30, 2024.
2. If Defendant's expert witness is retained or specially
employed
to provide expert testimony in this case or one whose duties
as
the party's employee regularly involve giving expert
testimony,
Defendant shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Fed.
R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) on or before Sept. 13, 2024.
3. If Plaintiff elects to depose any expert witness designated
by
Defendant, Plaintiff shall conduct that deposition on or
before
September 30, 2024.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xGCkER at no extra
charge.[CC]
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Stadium Capital Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STADIUM CAPITAL LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC., DWIGHT H. EGAN, and BRIAN L. BROWN, Case No.
1:22-cv-06978-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant
to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
(2) appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
(3) appointing Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Class Counsel.
Co-Diagnostics is a molecular diagnostics company that develops,
manufactures, and sells reagents used for diagnostic tests.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gb5usj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Donald R. Hall, Esq.
Jason A. Uris, Esq.
Chang Hahn, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
dhall@kaplanfox.com
juris@kaplanfox.com
chahn@kaplanfox.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Medina Amended Complaint Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eukarys Medina,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07388-DG-TAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered an order granting
the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing the Amended
Complaint.
Dismissal of the Amended Complaint is without leave to further
amend. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff's request for leave to
amend is made in a single sentence at the end of Plaintiff's
opposition briefing and the Plaintiff gives no indication of what
allegations, if any, the Plaintiff would add if granted leave to
amend her already-amended pleading.
The Plaintiff was apprised of the pleading defects in the Amended
Complaint by way of Defendant's letter motion for a pre-motion
conference with respect to the Amended Complaint, and by way of the
pre-motion conference itself and yet did not seek leave to further
amend at that time, waiting instead to include a (wholly cursory)
request in her opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
On the record before the Court, there is no indication that the
Plaintiff could provide additional factual allegations that might
cure the deficiencies set forth above and lead to a different
result. Under these circumstances, leave to amend is not
warranted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this
case
The Plaintiff Eukarys Medina brings this putative class action
against the Defendant, stemming from the purchase of laundry
detergent sold by the Defendant.
The Amended Complaint alleges (1) violation of New York General
Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350; (2) violation of the
"Consumer Fraud Acts" of various states; (3) breaches of express
warranty and implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose; and (4) unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff alleges that Costco makes and sells containers of
5.73 liters of detergent marketed as sufficient to wash 146 loads
of laundry under its Kirkland Signature Ultra Clean brand; that the
reference to 146 loads "grabs the purchaser's attention" but "is
followed by a difficult-to-see asterisk;" that the front label does
not inform consumers that an explanation for the asterisk can be
found on the back label; and that "[o]nly when the container is
reversed and the consumer wades through a wall of pictures, symbols
and words of varying size, font and color" will they learn that the
amount of detergent is only sufficient for 146 loads when the cup
is filled to slightly below line 4 on the cup.
On De. 6, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action.
On April 14, 2023, the Defendant filed a letter motion for a
pre-motion conference in connection with Defendant’s anticipated
motion to dismiss the Complaint, in which the Defendant argued that
the Complaint suffered from various deficiencies.
On July 11, 2023, the Court held a pre-motion conference regarding
the Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.
Costco Wholesale owns and operates a chain of membership
warehouses.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5gCv2w at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Snyder Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-03411 (E.D. Pa., July 27, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its computer
systems following a data breach on or about February 14, 2024, less
than one month after a criminal ransomware group known as LockBit
did the same. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
David's Bridal, Inc. is a clothier headquartered in Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
DELTA AIR: Court Refuses to Dismiss Goodyear Employment Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, denies the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled LUKAS GOODYEAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.).
The lawsuit is a putative breach of contract class action. The case
arises from Plaintiff Lukas Goodyear's employment with Defendant
Delta Air Lines, Inc. Goodyear alleges that he was improperly
denied overtime pay for working an additional shift because he also
happened to swap a shift with a colleague, Mr. Patrick Slaughter,
during the same pay period. Such a denial, Goodyear contends,
constitutes a breach of Delta's compensation obligations as set
forth in document entitled "Hours of Work, Overtime and Shift
Differential (Ground, Noncontract Employees)"--referred to
hereinafter as the "Overtime Policy."
Mr. Goodyear filed the present action on Dec. 12, 2023, asserting
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated Delta employees. Delta now
moves to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a
claim.
Delta moves to dismiss Goodyear's breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims, arguing (1) that he fails to plead the existence
of a contract, (2) that the Overtime Policy prohibits overtime pay
in the context of shift swaps, (3) that Goodyear does not plead he
was entitled to overtime pay, and (4) that Delta received no
benefit from Goodyear that would support the unjust enrichment
claim.
Delta also contends that the class allegations fail because
individual inquiries inevitably predominate over contract and
unjust enrichment claims like the ones presented here.
Delta first argues that Goodyear's breach of contract claim should
be dismissed because he fails to plead the existence of an
enforceable contract under the Overtime Policy. But at the motion
to dismiss stage, the Court concludes that the Overtime Policy
plausibly supports Goodyear's breach of contract claim seeking
overtime pay.
The cases on which Delta relies in support of its position largely
occurred at the summary judgment stage or later, Judge Thrash says.
Accordingly, Goodyear's breach of contract claim should not be
dismissed on this asserted ground.
Delta next argues that Goodyear's breach of contract claim fails
because the Overtime Policy expressly excludes swapped time from
consideration for overtime pay. The Overtime Policy provides that
swaps do not count towards OT threshold so swapping should never
put an employee into an overtime eligible situation. Goodyear
argues that his claim for breach is consistent with the Overtime
Policy's language because his swap with Mr. Slaughter was not what
made him overtime eligible for the period in question--rather, his
working an additional shift on Oct. 21, 2022, made him overtime
eligible.
The Court again agrees with Goodyear that dismissal on this
asserted ground is improper. Taking the Complaint's allegations as
true and construing them in the light most favorable to him, Judge
Thrash finds Goodyear has pleaded a plausible claim for breach.
Because Goodyear pleads that "all his scheduled shifts and
scheduled days had been worked" for the pay period in question, his
claim for breach survives plausible scrutiny at the motion to
dismiss stage.
Delta next contends that Goodyear's unjust enrichment claim should
be dismissed because it did not induce him to confer a benefit, nor
did he actually confer any benefit, on Delta. But the Court
concludes that Goodyear has sufficiently pleaded his unjust
enrichment claim in the alternative to his breach of contract
claim.
Were his breach of contract claim to ultimately fail, Judge Thrash
opines that Goodyear has at least plausibly alleged that he
conferred a benefit on Delta by working an additional shift for
which he could have reasonably expected, but did not receive,
overtime pay. Accordingly, dismissal of his unjust enrichment claim
is improper.
Finally, Delta moves to dismiss Goodyear's class allegations as
insufficient. Delta contends (1) that numerous individualized
inquiries will predominate over common ones in proving the class
members' claims, (2) that the applicability of multiple states'
laws destroys commonality, and (3) that unjust enrichments claims
are not suitable for class treatment.
But as Delta acknowledges, Judge Thrash says the evaluation of
class allegations is often deferred to the class certification
stage. And tellingly, most of the authority on which Delta relies
in support of its argument implicates class certification motions.
Here, the Court concludes that Goodyear has at least plausibly
alleged that class treatment is appropriate as to his breach of
contract claim or, in the alternative, his unjust enrichment
claim.
If Delta indeed compensates its employees in a manner that runs
contrary to the Overtime Policy, Judge Thrash opines that depriving
them of overtime pay to which they are entitled, such a
compensation practice could plausibly constitute a breach of
Delta's contractual obligations to its employees over which common
issues of law and fact predominate.
Accordingly, the Court declines to evaluate the sufficiency of the
class allegations at the motion to dismiss stage and defers that
evaluation to the class certification stage. For these reasons, the
Court denies Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 11,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4w26d8m2 from
PacerMonitor.com.
DMGG INC: Has Until Aug. 9 to File Class Cert Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ABEYTA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DMGG, INC., dba BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, a California corporation,
Case No. 3:22-cv-07089-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston
entered an order
extending briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's class certification
motion.
-- The Defendant's deadline to file an Aug. 9, 2024
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification is extended
to:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to reply in Aug. 30, 2024
support of the Motion for Class
Certification is extended to:
The Defendant's counsel, Muhammed Hussain, who was researching and
drafting the Opposition to Motion for Class Certification
contracted Covid on July 25 and has not been able to work on the
Opposition since that date, and will not be able to work on it for
a few more days.
The Parties believe the requested extension will not alter the date
of the hearing; however, the Parties are amenable should the Court
decided to continue the hearing to a date convenient to the Court.
Bail Hotline is a family owned bail bonds company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0umwEo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
Natasha J. Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
Julian Zhu, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
jzhu@edelson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gary A. Nye, Esq.
Muhammed T. Hussain, Esq.
ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE &
ADREANI, LLP
5900 Canoga Avenue, Suite 450
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 992-9999
Facsimile: (818) 992-999
E-mail: gan@rpnalaw.com
mth@rpnalaw.com
DMGG INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ABEYTA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DMGG, INC., dba BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, a California corporation,
Case No. 3:22-cv-07089-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order that:
-- Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to Plaintiff's
motion
for class certification is extended to Aug. 9, 2024, and
-- the Plaintiff’s deadline to reply in support of the Motion
for
class certification is extended to Aug. 30, 2024.
The Defendant's counsel, Muhammed Hussain, who was researching and
drafting the Opposition to Motion for Class Certification
contracted Covid on July 25 and has not been able to work on the
Opposition since that date, and will not be able to work on it for
a few more days. The Parties have met and conferred and agreed to a
one-week extension on the remaining deadlines.
The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification on June 28,
2024.
The Plaintiff's deposition was taken on July 2, 2024 and the
deposition transcript was finalized on July 16, 2024.
Bail Hotline is a family owned bail bonds company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DAgt55 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
Natasha J. Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
Julian Zhu, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
jzhu@edelson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gary A. Nye, Esq.
Muhammed T. Hussain, Esq.
ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE &
ADREANI, LLP
5900 Canoga Avenue, Suite 450
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 992-9999
Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
E-mail: gan@rpnalaw.com
mth@rpnalaw.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Ends Fantasy Sports NFT Business Amid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Beganski, writing for Decrypt, reports that the fantasy
sports giant DraftKings informed users Tuesday, July 30, that its
Polygon-powered NFT experience Reignmakers has met an unceremonious
end, effective immediately.
Citing "recent legal developments," the company wrote in an email
reviewed by Decrypt that Reignmakers and its associated NFT
marketplace have been discontinued. Meanwhile, users have the
opportunity to "relinquish those game pieces" in exchange for a
cash payment or withdraw them to a self-custodial wallet.
Stemming from a 2021 agreement with Polygon, an Ethereum scaling
network, DraftKings' Reignmakers let users compete in fantasy
sports contests across football, golf, and mixed martial arts. The
value of the NFTs sometimes fluctuated based on athletes'
performances, and could be resold on a dedicated marketplace.
"We extend our heartfelt thanks to all of you who made Reignmakers
special," DraftKings told users in the email Tuesday, July 30,
adding that the "decision was not made lightly." DraftKings had
still been tweeting about Reignmakers competitions.
The abrupt end to Reignmakers and DraftKings' NFT marketplace was
motivated by a recent decision in Massachusetts federal court, a
person familiar with the move told Decrypt. In a class action
lawsuit filed last March, DraftKings users alleged that Reignmakers
NFTs were offered as unregistered securities under the Howey Test,
a legal framework for assets.
DraftKings moved to dismiss the lawsuit, but Judge Denise Jefferson
Casper of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ruled the lawsuit could proceed to trial.
Casper found earlier this month that the lawsuit's plaintiffs
"plausibly alleged that DraftKings' NFTs satisfy three prongs of
the Howey test," including the investment of money in a common
enterprise where an expectation of profit is derived from the
efforts of others.
"I will never spend another dollar at this dumpster fire," Reddit
user No_Gap4123 lamented in DraftKings' community. Another user
named sirjackel06 wrote, "I will be suing if they don't make this
right."
DraftKings said in a written statement to Decrypt that NFTs and
"Reignmakers digital game pieces" will remain accessible and
transferable as the discontinuation gets underway. It added the
firm will continue to keep its community updated as it follows "the
right course of action."
In June, Dapper Labs, the company behind NBA Top Shot and other
prominent on-chain collectibles, reached a $4 million settlement
with disgruntled holders of its NFTs. In that lawsuit, customers
alleged that NFTs offered by Dapper Labs constituted unregistered
securities as well.
"It has always been in DraftKings' DNA to innovate and disrupt in
order to provide the best possible gameplay experiences for our
customers," DraftKings continued, adding that Reignmakers and the
NFT marketplace "saw immediate success upon launch."
A separate Reddit user named Aberdeen1964 wrote that DraftKings
should "finish the season," expressing concern that a cash payout
would be less than the amount that they had spent.
Across several sports, DraftKings NFTs notched $280 million in
total sales -- including secondary market trades -- according to
CryptoSlam data. As the NFL season kicked off last September, the
project notched its best month, with $21 million in total sales
across 30,000 unique buyers.
While DraftKings' NFTs could sometimes fetch thousands of dollars
on its secondary marketplace -- a top sale of $70,000 took place
three years ago -- a majority went for small amounts of change.
That includes what could be the project's last transaction, when a
Reignmakers NFT sold for $0.33. [GN]
EF INSTITUTE: Douglas Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA DOUGLAS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled
Melissa Douglas, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EF Institute for Cultural
Exchange, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11740-DJC, the
U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts.
The suit, which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, seeks restitutionary damages, an
injunction to enjoin EF from enforcing the "No Public Heath Health
Emergency Refund Clause" allowing them to refuse to make a full
cash refund. The Plaintiffs also seek an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief under
California's Unfair Competition Law.
On Mar. 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Denise J. Casper on June 20, 2024.
"In sum, because the Plaintiffs propose an expanded class
definition and the proposed modifications would be unfairly
prejudicial to EF Tours, the Court declines to certify the
Plaintiffs' proposed class definition," ruled Judge Casper. "Even
if the Court had accepted the Plaintiffs' class definition, it
fails on the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3)."
The appellate case is captioned Douglas, et al. v. EF Institute for
Cultural Exchange, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-8019, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on July 5,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners MELISSA DOUGLAS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Barry Michael Altman, Esq.
ALTMAN & ALTMAN
404 Main St., Ste. 3
Wilmington, MA 01887
Telephone: (978) 658-3388
- and –
Sean T. Carnathan, Esq.
Stephanie R. Parker, Esq.
O'CONNOR CARNATHAN & MACK LLC
10 Mall Rd., Ste. 301
Burlington, MA 01803
Telephone: (781) 359-9002
(781) 359-9000
- and –
Brian T. Corrigan, Esq.
CORRIGAN LAW
122 Chestnut St.
Andover, MA 01810
Telephone: (978) 988-1544
- and –
Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery St., Ste. 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 215-0962
- and –
William McGrane, Esq.
MCGRANE PC
4 Embarcadero Ctr., 14th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 292-4807
- and –
John J. Roddy, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
176 Federal St., 5th Fl.
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
Defendants-Respondents EF INSTITUTE FOR CULTURAL EXCHANGE, INC., et
al. are represented by:
Alexander Sixto Del Nido, Esq.
Matthew Mazzotta, Esq.
Aliki Sofis, Esq.
Harvey J. Wolkoff, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
111 Huntington Ave., Ste. 520
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 712-7100
(617) 712-7116
EXP REALTY: Usanovic Suit Parties Agree to Limit Class Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Parties' Joint Motion
to Approve the Parties' Stipulation Regarding Numerosity for
Purposes of Plaintiff's Anticipated Motion for Class Certification
in the lawsuit titled KELLY USANOVIC, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXP REALTY, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00687-JLR (W.D. Wash.).
Plaintiff Kelly Usanovic and Defendant eXp Realty, LLC ("eXp"), by
and through their respective counsel, entered into a stipulation
for the purpose of limiting burdensome class discovery prior to
class certification. The Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion for
class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in this matter.
The Plaintiff anticipates defining the putative class as: All
persons in the United States who from four years prior to the
filing of this action through class certification (1) one or more
eXp real estate agents called more than one time in the aggregate
using a dialer from Mojo, Vulcan7, or RedX, or a substantially
similar dialer, (2) as a result of being obtained as a lead from
Mojo, Vulcan7, or RedX, or a substantially similar lead provider,
(3) within any 12-month period, (4) where the person's residential
telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least thirty days, (5) for substantially the same
reason eXp's real estate agents called the Plaintiff. eXp intends
to dispute that this class or any other class meets the
requirements for certification.
For the exclusive purpose of the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for
class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, eXp agrees to
stipulate that the element of numerosity is satisfied. eXp also
agrees not to challenge class certification based on the absence of
evidence that could only have been developed if the Plaintiff had
obtained a complete set of records of calls or leads by eXp real
estate agents to putative class members.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, eXp does not waive any other
argument or position that a class should not be certified in the
action. eXp expressly preserves its right to raise any other
argument or position in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, including arguments or positions related to
adequacy, commonality, typicality, predominance, superiority,
ascertainability, and the feasibility of the methodology employed
to identify class members.
The Plaintiff agrees that, unless and until a class action is
certified, she will limit any third party subpoenas for call or
lead records to call and lead records associated with calls by the
three eXp real estate agents that called the Plaintiff, Ali
Shahrohki, Carlos Mezquitan, and Igor Li. The Plaintiff also agrees
to advise any third parties to which broader subpoenas have already
been issued regarding this agreed upon limitation. To the extent
Plaintiff has already received records for any other real estate
agents, the Plaintiff agrees to not use those records unless and
until a class action is certified.
If a class action is certified, eXp agrees that the Plaintiff is
entitled to obtain through third party subpoenas, and if necessary
to compel production of, all call and lead records associated with
all calls by eXp real estate agents to members of the class
certified by the Court, even if the deadline to complete discovery
has already passed at the time certification is granted.
If a class action is certified, eXp agrees to provide the dates of
affiliation with eXp for any real estate agent for whom the
Plaintiff obtains or has obtained records and for whom eXp has
records.
By entering into this Stipulation, eXp does not waive any argument
or position that it is not liable. eXp may continue to present all
available defenses in the action.
By entering into this Stipulation, the attorneys for both the
Plaintiff and eXp represent and warrant that that their clients
have agreed to the binding nature of this Stipulation, and that
they have the authority to enter into the stipulation in the action
on behalf of their respective clients.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/he42bjt5 from PacerMonitor.com.
Avi R. Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- KAUFMAN P.A., in Coral
Gables, FL 33133; Eric Draluck -- eric@dralucklaw.com -- in
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
Sarah Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- Amy Starinieri
Gilbert -- agilbert@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, in
Chicago, IL 60601-1818; Nathaniel L. Taylor -- ntaylor@elmlaw.com
-- Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC, in Seattle, WA 98101, Attorneys for
Defendant eXp Realty, LLC.
FASTMED URGENT: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants in
part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled JACKELYN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff v. FASTMED URGENT
CARE, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00403-D-RJ (E.D.N.C.).
On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff Jackelyn Rodriguez, on behalf of
herself and others, filed an action against FastMed Urgent Care,
P.C., for (1) a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, Title ill of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, (2) negligence under North Carolina law, (3) invasion of
privacy for intrusion upon seclusion under North Carolina law, and
(4) a violation of the North Carolina Electronic Surveillance Act.
Meta produces the Meta Pixel, a "snippet of code" that a business
can attach to its website to collect its users' data. The Meta
Pixel collects information, including website clicks, content
accessed, time spent on a website page, and user inquiries.
FastMed is an integrated healthcare provider/payer system in
Raleigh, North Carolina, operating nearly 200 medical clinics in
Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas. FastMed installed Meta
Pixels on its website and its MyChart portal. FastMed, however, did
not seek consent from patients before sharing their
individually-identifiable health information.
Ms. Rodriguez is a FastMed patient. Since 2015, she has used
FastMed's website and FastMed's MyChart portal to schedule
appointments, locate FastMed providers and locations, find
information on specific health conditions, treatments, and
medications, message doctors, view doctors notes, schedule
appointments, and review medications. Rodriguez alleges she
provided individually-identifiable health information to FastMed
through these mechanisms.
In 2009, Rodriguez created a Facebook account and accepted
Facebook's (now Meta) terms and conditions. Rodriguez still uses
this account. She alleges that FastMed shared her
individually-identifiable health information with Meta for
commercial gain without her consent and thereby, violated HIPAA,
federal regulations, state regulations, and FastMed's privacy
policies.
Ms. Rodriguez brings this action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated. She Rodriguez seeks damages, injunctive relief,
and declaratory relief.
On Sept. 22, 2023, FastMed moved to dismiss the action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and filed
a memorandum in support. On Oct. 13, 2023, Rodriguez responded in
opposition. On Oct. 27, 2023, FastMed replied.
Judge Dever finds that Rodriguez has standing to seek damages for
her federal claim. The Court, however, grants FastMed's motion to
dismiss her federal claim under Rule 12(b)(6), declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims, and concludes
that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over her
state-law claims under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Judge Dever finds that Rodriguez has plausibly alleged concrete
injury in her federal claim to support Article III standing.
Rodriguez, however, fails to plausibly allege continuing, present
adverse effects. Thus, Judge Dever holds that Rodriguez lacks
standing for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning her
federal claim.
Judge Dever notes that the Court need not accept Rodriguez's legal
conclusions in her complaint about FastMed's alleged purposes for
intercepting and disclosing her data to Meta. Judge Dever points
out that the mere possibility that FastMed intercepted and
disclosed her data to Meta for the purpose of committing any
criminal or tortious act does not suffice. Accordingly, Rodriguez's
federal claim fails.
The Court has jurisdiction over count one under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367
over the state-law claims in counts two, three, and four because
they arose from the same nucleus of operative fact. Judge Dever
opines that eliminating all federal claims before trial generally
suffices for a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction
over pendent state-law claims. Thus, the Court declines to exercise
jurisdiction over Rodriguez's state-law claims.
The Plaintiff's putative class encompasses "[a]ll people who used
FastMed's web properties and had individually-identifiable health
information about their past, present, or future health conditions
shared with Meta without notice or consent."
The Court finds that Rodriguez plausibly alleges that her putative
class includes "thousands" of members, who reside in Florida,
Texas, and Arizona, while FastMed resides in North Carolina.
Rodriguez's allegations satisfy CAFA's minimal diversity
requirement. Rodriguez, however, fails to plausibly allege the
amount in controversy in this action.
In sum, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's federal claim in count
one, and declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
state-law claims in counts two, three, and four. Thus, the Court
dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's state-law claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3tacw2e8 from PacerMonitor.com.
FEDEX GROUND: Class Cert Hearing in Depina Continued to Oct. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARA DEPINA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00156-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Trina Thompson entered an order granting stipulated request to
continue hearing on class certification motion by one week.
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
continued from Oct. 8, 2024, to 2:00 pm on Oct. 15, 2024.
Fedex Ground provides package delivery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v22BEF at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howards Extended to Dec. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY HOWARDS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael
Barrett entered a second amended calendar order as follows:
Event Date
Deadline for Plaintiff to Produce Revised Class Aug. 1,
2024
Certification Expert Report
Deadline for Defendant to Depose Plaintiff's Aug. 28,
2024
Expert
Deadline for Defendant's Disclosure and Report Sept. 18,
2024
of Class Certification Expert(s)
Deadline for the Disclosure of Non-Expert Oct. 1,
2024
(Fact) Witnesses
Deadline for Plaintiff to Depose Defendant's Oct. 7,
2024
Expert(s)
Deadline for Plaintiff's Disclosure and Report of Oct. 30,
2024
Rebuttal Class Certification Expert(s)
Deadline for Defendant to Depose Plaintiff's Nov. 22,
2024
Rebuttal Expert(s)
Deadline for Close of all Non-Merits-Only Dec. 16,
2024
Discovery
Deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Dec. 16,
2024
Certification
Deadline for Defendant's Response to Motion Jan. 31,
2024
for Class Certification
Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply for Motion for Feb. 28,
2024
Class Certification
Fifth Third Bank is a bank holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zJVJ7h at no extra
charge.[CC]
FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: May Face Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Findlay
Automotive Group data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
On June 7, 2024, Findlay Automotive Group, which operates car
dealerships in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Washington,
discovered unusual activity within its network, indicating a
potential data breach. A cybersecurity firm was engaged to
investigate, and the investigation revealed that sensitive employee
data, including names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license
numbers, passport numbers, and other employment-related
information, may have been accessed or acquired without
authorization. As a result, the company has notified all employees
potentially affected by the Findlay Automotive Group data breach.
If your information was exposed in the breach, attorneys want to
hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to
recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with
the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force Findlay Automotive Group to
ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was
entrusted with.
An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.
Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]
GEORGE LITTLE: Court Narrows Claims in Molina Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL MOLINA, et al., v.
GEORGE M. LITTLE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00257-MRH (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order resolving the
pending Motion to dismiss as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs' RFRA and Establishment Clause claims are
dismissed
with prejudice, as further amendment would be futile;
(2) Plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages under RLUIPA and the
Free Exercise Clause are dismissed with prejudice because of
immunity doctrines, and amendment would be futile;
(3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive
relief under RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause is denied;
(4) Defendant Little is dismissed from this action due to
mootness
and is not a proper party to this action unless he returns
to a
policymaking role as to the Little Policy;
(5) Defendant Gustafson is dismissed as a Defendant without
prejudice due to inadequate personal involvement;
(6) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the DOC as a named defendant
is
denied; and
(7) Plaintiffs Lamb and Tildon are dismissed from the action
without prejudice due to their relocation to other SCIs, as
they are not proper Plaintiffs in this action unless they
are
resident at SCI-Forest.
The Court does note that class certification is of little practical
consequence in this action, as the scope of relief would not change
because any potential prospective relief here would implicate and
affect the DOC’s policies with respect to SCI-Forest, not just
the DOC’s policies as applied to Plaintiff Molina. Thus, class
certification is likely unnecessary to afford full relief, if
Plaintiff Molina prevailed on one or more the remaining claims.
Plaintiffs Miguel Molina, Michael Lamb, and Tyron Dixon Tildon
brought this pro se, putative class action under the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA), the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the First Amendment’s Free
Exercise and Establishment Clauses.
The individual Defendants are former Secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections ("DOC") George M. Little, current
Secretary Laurel R. Harry, Deputy Superintendent for Central
Services at SCI-Forest Ian Gustafson, and SCI-Forest Facility
Chaplaincy Program Director S. Shaffer. The DOC is also named as an
entity Defendant as to the RLUIPA claim.
The Plaintiffs seek relief as to the DOC's now-dormant religious
meals policy, the policy colloquially known as or set forth in the
"Little Memo" or the "Little Policy."
The Plaintiffs seek monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R08Wyo at no extra
charge.[CC]
GIANT CO: Holbert Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORBIN HOLBERT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
GIANT COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00501-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer Wilson entered an order granting motion for leave to
file Rule 23 class certification.
Giant Company is an American regional supermarket chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=deAQmp at no extra
charge.[CC]
GREAT AMERICAN: Bid to Compel Arbitration in CONAM Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff v.
GREAT AMERICAN E&S INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-02122-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued
an order:
1. granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration;
2. staying proceedings; and
3. terminating the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Before the Court is Defendant Great American E&S Insurance
Company's ("GAESIC") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
and Motion to Compel Arbitration. GAESIC moves to compel
arbitration on the grounds that arbitration in this case is
mandated by statute. GAESIC also moves to dismiss the case on the
grounds that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
Plaintiff CONAM Management Corporation brought this case against
GAESIC, its insurance company, claiming that because GAESIC will
not fully cover the costs of hiring independent counsel to defend
CONAM in a series of legal actions, GAESIC is acting in bad faith
and breaching the terms of the insurance contract. Specifically,
CONAM brings claims for (1) declaratory relief -- duty to defend;
(2) breach of contract; and (3) breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
CONAM holds a professional liability insurance policy with GAESIC,
on which CONAM has paid each premium. CONAM's insurance policy
contains "a broad duty to defend" wherein GAESIC is obligated to
defend any Claim against CONAM to which this insurance applies,
even if any of the allegations of the Claim are groundless, false,
or fraudulent. CONAM is now a defendant in a series of putative
class action lawsuits alleging various civil state and federal
antitrust violations against it, as well as several other private
causes of action. Collectively, these actions will be referred to
as the "RealPage Actions."
CONAM tendered the RealPage Actions to GAESIC days after the first
of the actions was filed. GAESIC agreed to defend but made that
agreement subject to a reservation of rights as to indemnity
coverage.
Judge Bashant notes that California law governs the relationship
between CONAM and GAESIC with regard to GAESIC's duty to defend
CONAM against the lawsuit. That law states that when an insurer
agrees to defend subject to a reservation of rights, the insured
may be entitled to independent counsel in the lawsuit if that
reservation of rights creates a conflict of interest.
Because GAESIC believed the reservation of rights created a
conflict of interest with CONAM, GAESIC agreed to allow CONAM to
select independent counsel, known as Cumis counsel, to defend it in
the RealPage Actions. Thus, CONAM hired and wishes to retain a firm
whose rates far exceed those authorized by GAESIC. CONAM finds the
firm's rates to be consistent with the market for these services
and what is paid by policyholders and insurers for such services.
CONAM hired the firm in question because CONAM believes the
RealPage Actions require representation by counsel with strong
experience in antitrust and class actions. GAESIC approved CONAM's
hiring of the firm as properly qualified and experienced counsel.
However, GAESIC did not agree to the rates charged by the firm and
agreed only to pay a "small fraction" of the rates, which, after
some negotiating, it eventually raised to a slightly higher
fraction. However, at the time CONAM filed the instant action, ten
months after the RealPage Actions began, GAESIC had paid nothing to
CONAM to assist in its defense.
CONAM filed the instant action seeking declaratory relief that
GAESIC is required to pay the totality of CONAM's legal bills in
the RealPage actions. CONAM also seeks recovery for the costs of
the instant action. CONAM requests such declaratory relief because
GAESIC breached its duty to defend CONAM by failing to pay the
entirety of Cumis counsel's fees in the RealPage actions and by
delaying its partial payment of those fees by nearly a year. CONAM
also claims that by breaching the duty to defend, GAESIC breached
its contract with CONAM.
As relief, CONAM seeks a declaration that GAESIC breached its
defense obligations to CONAM under the insurance policy. It also
seeks compensatory damages and costs. Additionally, CONAM claims
that GAESIC's actions amount to a breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing because GAESIC persistently took
unreasonable positions regarding the rates it would pay to counsel,
refused to consider evidence of rates paid for defense counsel in
similar actions, and failed to properly investigate the required
level of representation and cost of defense for actions like the
RealPage Actions. CONAM also seeks compensatory, consequential,
and/or extra-contractual damages as relief for its bad faith claim
in addition to declaratory relief that GAESIC acted in bad faith.
CONAM originally filed this action in state court before GAESIC
removed it to federal court. CONAM did not challenge the removal
and GAESIC subsequently moved to compel arbitration or, on the
other hand, to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
Ultimately, the caselaw comes down to a question: does the bulk of
the dispute lie with attorney's fees, or does it include broader
issues that should be resolved prior to arbitration? Here, Judge
Bashant finds CONAM's own Complaint forces this case to
arbitration.
If GAESIC's limitation of attorney's fees is the problem, the Court
must compel the case to arbitration. Unlike Janopaul and Intergulf,
here the parties do not dispute GAESIC's duty to defend, but rather
how GAESIC has attempted to fulfill that duty, Judge Bashant
opines, citing Janopaul + Block Companies v. Superior Ct., 200 Cal.
App. 4th 1239, 1249 (2011); and Intergulf Dev. LLC v. Superior Ct.,
183 Cal. App. 4th 16, 20 (2010).
Looking at the language of each of CONAM's claims, Judge Bashant
says it is clear that they all hinge in large part, if not
entirely, on the amount GAESIC has agreed to pay to Cumis counsel
for CONAM's defense in the RealPage Actions.
The Court cannot determine if GAESIC's actions constitute good or
bad faith, a breach of contract, or failure to defend without first
determining whether the proposed rates are reasonable. Attempting
to resolve CONAM's claims without that determination would be
putting the cart before the horse. Section 2860 compels that exact
question to arbitration.
Accordingly, the Court grants GAESIC's Motion to Compel Arbitration
with respect to the rates GAESIC must pay for CONAM's defense in
the RealPage Actions. Within thirty (30) days of this Order, the
parties must select a single neutral arbitrator to provide a
binding resolution as to the amount GAESIC owes.
Because the reasonableness of Cumis counsel's fees goes to the
heart of CONAM's claims in this case, the Court finds it most
efficient to stay the present action pending the resolution of
arbitration. The Court, therefore, ordered that all proceedings in
this matter will be stayed and the file administratively closed.
Within fourteen (14) days of conclusion of arbitration proceedings,
the parties will file a joint request to lift the stay.
Finally, the Court terminates the pending Motion to Dismiss. Upon
conclusion of the stay, the Court will reinstate or direct GAESIC
to refile the Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mvj3u4a8 from PacerMonitor.com.
HADAF LLC: Zeller Must File Supplemental Memo by August 29
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zeller v. Hadaf LLC, the
Case No. 6:24-cv-06271 (W.D.N.Y. Filed May 2, 2024), Hon. Judge
Frank P. Geraci, Jr. entered an order that the Plaintiff's
supplemental memorandum (and associated evidentiary materials, if
any) are due by Aug. 29, 2024.
-- The Defendant has until Sept. 30, 2024, to respond to the
motion
and supplement.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud
Hadaf is a manufacturer of drugs and pharmaceuticals.[CC]
HADAF LLC: Zeller Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA ZELLER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HADAF LLC, d/b/a
Brillia, Case No. 6:24-cv-06271-FPG (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will
move the Court for an Order:
(i) certifying the proposed class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);
(ii) appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative;
(iii) appointing Denlea & Carton LLP as class counsel; and
(iv) granting the Plaintiff leave to take discovery to identify
members of the Class and to determine the amount of
damages,
together with such and other further relief as the Court
may
deem just and proper.
Hadaf is a manufacturer of drugs and pharmaceuticals.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I0K995 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Craig M. Cepler, Esq.
Catherine H. Friesen, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
jcarton@denleacarton.com
ccepler@denleacarton.com
cfriesen@denleacarton.com
HCA HEALTHCARE: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Work for Residency Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLO REYES, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC. and LOS
ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06315
(C.D. Cal., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of contract, unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, and
equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of their
contractual agreements by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
similarly situated physicians for some or all of their work in the
HCA hospital residency program including time spent teaching
residents. As a result of the Defendants' breach of contract, the
Plaintiff and members of the Class have been damaged, says the
suit.
HCA Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services provider with a
principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee.
Los Robles Regional Medical Center is a healthcare services
provider doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Millstein, Esq.
MILLSTEIN & ASSOCIATES PC
100 The Embarcadero, Ste Penthouse
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 348-0348
Facsimile: (415) 348-0336
Email: dmillstein@millstein-law.com
- and -
Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
John Hughes, Esq.
Olivia Smith, Esq.
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
525 N. Main Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
Telephone: (704) 633-5244
Facsimile: 800-849-5291
Email: Mwallace@wallacegraham.com
Jhughes@wallacegraham.com
Osmith@wallacegraham.com
J.B. HUNT: Class Cert Pretrial Factual Discovery Due Oct. 25
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR v. J.B. HUNT
TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., the Case No. 1:22-cv-04832 (D.N.J., Filed
July 29, 2022), Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order
granting the 60 day extension of deadlines per Letter Order No. 70,
which creates a deadline of Oct. 25, 2024, to complete the first
phase of pretrial factual discovery necessary for class
certification, including Defendant's deposition of Plaintiff and
any other witnesses.
The parties shall continue to proceed consistent with the operative
scheduling deadlines and that there will be a telephone conference
call on October 4, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company.[CC]
JCF HOUSEMENTS: Aug. 30 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERIKA HADLEY; TARNELL
EWING; TODDRICO BEAN; MICHAEL THOMPSON; and SHELVICK NELSON,
Individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JCF HOUSEMENTS MANUFACTURING LLC; JCF HUNTSVILLE, LLC;
JCF LEBANON HILL, LLC; JCF LEBANON, LLC; JCF LIVING, LLC; JCF
RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; FAYETTEVILLE CRE, LLC; JOHN
FITZMAURICE, Individually and as Trustee of JF IRREVOCABLE TRUST;
JULIE FITZMAURICE, individually and as Trustee of JULIE FITZMAURICE
TRUST; RYAN FITZMAURICE; RICHARD JONES; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00023-KAC-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order extending the Phase One Discovery Deadline and
deadline to File Any Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice or Class
Certification up to and including Aug. 30, 2024.
The Plaintiffs have asserted a class and collective action against
the Defendants for alleged violations of the federal Workers
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("the WARN Act"), the
Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and other state laws. The
Defendants deny the claims.
The Complaint was filed on July 10, 2023. The Court entered a Phase
One Scheduling Order on Feb. 1, 2024, which established deadlines
of May 31, 2024, for the completion of Phase One Discovery and the
deadline to File Any Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice or Class
Certification.
On May 28, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Extend the
Phase One Discovery Deadline and Motion for Court-Facilitated
Notice or Class Certification Deadline.
On June 4, 2024, this Court entered an Order extending the deadline
for Phase One Discovery and for filing any motion for
court-facilitated notice of class certification to July 26, 2024.
JCF specializes in premier manufactured homes.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d8S9Jl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William "Jack" Simpson, Esq.
LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC
100 South Main Street
Booneville, MS 38829
Telephone: (662) 728-9733
Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
E-mail: jsimpson@langstonlott.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel Crowell, Esq.
BARTON LLP
611 Commerce Street, Suite 2603
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 340-6790
E-mail: dcrowell@bartonesq.com
- and -
Jonathan O. Harris, Esq.
Ashton Hoffman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
611 Commerce Street, Suite 2803
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 565-1665
E-mail: jonathan.harris@jacksonlewis.com
ashton.hoffman@jacksonlewis.com
JJMB OPERATING: Parties Seek FLSA Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN MCCARROLL, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. JJMB
OPERATING LLC d/b/a UNION MESA a/k/a UNION MESA RESTAURANT &
CANTINA, Case No. 6:24-cv-00139-SPS (E.D. Okla.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order:
(1) conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); and
(2) authorizing notice of this action, attached as Exhibit A, to
the following individuals:
"All current and former Tip Credit Employees of the
Defendant
at its Union Mesa Restaurant & Cantina at any time since
April
22, 2021. ("Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs")."
By agreeing to resolve the issue of conditional class certification
and notice at this time and, with the Court's permission, reserving
the issue of whether Defendant will seek to de-certify any of the
conditional collective actions at a later date, the parties submit
that they are preserving judicial resources and ensuring the
efficient litigation of the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's
defenses.
On Apr. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff McCarroll filed a Collective Action
Complaint under the FLSA seeking minimum wages, overtime wages, and
recovery of unlawfully retained tips for "Tip Credit Employees" at
the Defendant's Union Mesa Restaurant & Cantina located in
Thackerville, Oklahoma.
The parties stipulate that the Defendant preserves all rights and
defenses (specifically including but not limited to their right to
move to decertify this class at an appropriate time in this
litigation) other than those opposing Plaintiffs' claim for
conditional certification and notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).
Union Mesa is a polished Mexican restaurant.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prfb7d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Brandon J. Burton, Esq.
Michael P. Hill, Esq.
BURTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
308 N.W. 13th, Ste. 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (800) 257-5533
Facsimile: (405) 232-0555
E-mail: brandon@burtonlaw.com
mike@burtonlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott Griffith, Esq.
Jason L. Cagle, Esq.
Erin Eileen Fry, Esq.
GRIFFITH DAVISON, PC
13737 Noel Rd, Ste 1200
Dallas, TX 75240-1335
Telephone: (972) 392-8900
Facsimile: (972) 392-8901
E-mail: sgriffith@griffithdavison.com
jcagle@griffithdavison.com
efry@griffithdavison.com
- and -
Kimberly Lambert Love, Esq.
Ashley F. Vinson, Esq.
TITUS HILLIS REYNOLDS LOVE
15 E Fifth St, Ste 3700
Tulsa, OK 74103-4334
Telephone: (918) 587-6800
Facsimile: (918) 587-6822
E-mail: klove@titushillis.com
avinson@titushillis.com
KOHLER CO: $2.45-Mil. Settlement in Holloway Suit Has Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the $2.45 million class action settlement in the
lawsuit captioned DANNY HOLLOWAY, JAMES KOHLHAGEN, JEFFREY LEFFIN,
and KEITH PFISTER, Plaintiffs v. KOHLER CO. and KOHLER CO. PENSION
PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01242-JPS (E.D. Wis.).
The case has been pending since September 2023. In the operative
pleading, Plaintiffs Danny Holloway, James Kohlhagen, Jeffrey
Leffin, and Keith Pfister ("Plaintiffs," both individually and on
behalf of the putative class) proceed against Defendants Kohler Co.
("Kohler") and the Kohler Co. Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf
of a putative class of participants and beneficiaries receiving
pension benefits in the form of a joint survivor annuity ("JSA")
from the Plan.
JSAs provide benefits for the lives of the participant and the
participant's spouse. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") requires that JSAs be "actuarially equivalent" to
the single-life annuity ("SLA") offered to the participant when he
or she began receiving benefits.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to provide JSAs to
married retirees that were actuarially equivalent to the SLAs
available to them, and as a result are underpaying married retirees
receiving JSAs, in violation of ERISA. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs' theory is that the Defendants used outdated actuarial
assumptions to convert SLAs to alternative forms of payment
including JSAs, thereby, miscalculating benefits for the Plaintiffs
and the proposed class.
In April 2024, the parties notified the Court that they had reached
a settlement. In June 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of their class action settlement with the
Defendants, which would conclude this litigation. The Defendants do
not oppose the motion.
Under the proposed settlement agreement, Kohler will amend the Plan
to provide that each class member is entitled to an increased
monthly benefit as of July 31, 2024, to continue for the rest of
the class members' (and their beneficiaries') lives. The parties'
proposed settlement agreement provides that the Defendants will
establish a common settlement fund of $2,450,000, out of which
payments (in the form of increased benefits) to class members,
service payments to Named Plaintiffs, and attorneys' fees and costs
will be paid.
The Plaintiffs aver that this $2.45 million figure is approximately
1/3 of the $7.39 million in class-wide damages as calculated by
their actuarial expert. In exchange for these monthly benefit
increases, class members will release their claims against the
Defendants.
The parties have also agreed on a method and forms to provide
notice to class members of the proposed settlement and how they may
object or opt out. The Defendants will bear the cost of providing
notice to class members and government entities as required under
the Class Action Fairness Act. Finally, the proposed settlement
agreement provides that class counsel may seek an award of
attorneys' fees up to 30% of the value of the settlement,
reimbursement of litigation expenses including expert fees, and
service awards of $2,500 for each of the Named Plaintiffs.
After reviewing the Plaintiffs' submissions, the Court agrees that,
at this juncture, there is no barrier to conditional certification
of the proposed class and preliminary approval of the class
settlement. The parties agree as to a definition of the proposed
settlement class, which the Court finds is "defined clearly and
based on objective criteria."
The Court also agrees with the Plaintiffs that the class satisfies
the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court agrees that,
based upon these representations, the Plaintiffs satisfy the
adequacy requirement. Turning finally to the requirements of Rule
23(b), the Court is persuaded that certification of a "non-opt out"
class under Rule 23(b)(1) is appropriate.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement, and incorporate the
terms of their proposed order, which will manage the settlement
process and ultimately conclude this litigation in a timely
manner.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to all Class Members, pending a final
settlement and fairness hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing").
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court preliminarily certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating
the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the following
Settlement Class:
All participants and spouse beneficiaries entitled to
benefits under the Kohler Co. Pension Plan who began
receiving a (1) joint and survivor annuity, (2) qualified
optional survivor annuity, or (3) qualified preretirement
survivor annuity, on or after Sept. 19, 2017, but before
Jan. 1, 2021, whose benefits had a present value that was
less than the present value of the SLA they were offered
using the applicable Treasury Assumptions as of each
participant's Benefit Commencement Date. Excluded from the
Class are Defendants and any individuals, who are
subsequently to be determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan.
The Court finds that, solely for the purpose of effectuating the
Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied, and the
Plaintiffs should be appointed as Class Representatives.
The Court orders the stay of any pending litigation in the Action
and enjoins the initiation of any new litigation by any Class
Member in any court, arbitration, or other tribunal that includes
any Released Claims against the Defendants or any of their
respective Related Parties.
The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice
substantially in the form attached to the Settlement Agreement as
Exhibit 2, and directs that no later than forty-five (45) days
after entry of this Order, the Defendants will cause the Notice to
be sent by regular mail to each known Class Member's last known
address that is maintained in the Plan's records. The cost of
providing the Notice to the Class as specified in this Order will
be paid as set forth in the Settlement.
The Final Approval Hearing will take place before Judge
Stadtmueller on Dec. 4, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4cs9x9 from PacerMonitor.com.
Christopher M. Barrett -- cbarrett@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD, KINDALL &
RAABE LLP, West Hartford, CT 06107, counsel for the Class.
Blake Crohan -- blake.crohan@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, in
Atlanta, GA 30309, counsel for the Defendants.
LASKO PRODUCTS: Velez "Space Heaters" Suit Seeks Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN VELEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LASKO PRODUCTS,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08581-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move
this Court, before the Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon, on a date and
time that the Court will determine, for an Order pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b), and (c):
1. Certifying all persons who purchased low profile portable
space
heaters, described as having an "Automatic Temperature
[feature
which] controls room temperature" and an "Easy-to-read
digital
display [that] allows you to control the warm air to your
comfort level" ("Product"), sold by the Defendant, in New
York,
during the relevant statutes of limitations, excluding the
judge
or magistrate assigned to this case; the Defendant; any
entity
in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; the
Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives,
successors, and assigns, and persons who purchased the
Product
for the purpose of resale";
2. Appointing Juan Velez as representative of the Class; and
3. Appointing Sheehan & Associates P.C. as Class Counsel.
Lasko manufactures and distributes ventilating and home comfort
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aDAN68 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LGI HOMES: McAlister Seeks Hearing on Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKKI MCALISTER,
individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, v.
LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03088-NYW-KAS (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order setting a
hearing on the Plaintiff's motion seeking class certification once
that motion is fully briefed.
The Plaintiff believes that oral argument on her Motion would be
beneficial to the Court and to the Parties in several ways. First
and foremost, the issues of class certification and the sending of
notice to putative class members are highly technical, and can be
somewhat complex. The undersigned is confident that oral argument
regarding these issues would assist the Court in evaluating the
application of Rule 23 to the facts of this case.
The Plaintiff's counsel certify that they conferred with the
Defendant's counsel prior to filing this Motion, and that the
Defendant does not oppose this Motion.
On May 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Motion Seeking Class
Certification.
On June 28, 2024, the Defendant filed its Response to that Motion.
LGI Homes designs and builds homes.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Do7Y74 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
Cynthia Sanchez, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
518 17th Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (720) 255-0370
Facsimile: (720) 668-8989
E-mail: chunter@hkm.com
aharrison@hkm.com
csanchez@hkm.com
- and -
Jennifer A. Wadhwa, Esq.
3I LAW LLC
2000 S. Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80206
Telephone: (303) 245-2100
E-mail: jwadhwa@3ilawfirm.com
LIBERTY STEEL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Robinson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robinson v. Liberty Steel
& Wire – Peoria, Case No. 1:24-cv-01232-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a
standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Liberty produces American-made steel fabricated wire products,
industrial wire, and wire rods.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkEPXb at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of those who acquired Lifecore Biomedical,
Inc. ("Lifecore" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LFCR) securities during
the period of October 7, 2020 to March 19, 2024, inclusive ("the
Class Period"). Investors have until September 27, 2024 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Between September 2022 and February 2024, Lifecore's share price
declined in response to a series of disclosures concerning material
weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, and delays
in making required filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).
The lawsuit alleges that (i) Lifecore maintained deficient internal
controls over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company
issued several financial statements that were inaccurate and would
need to be restated; (iii) Lifecore's purported remediation efforts
with respect to the foregoing deficiencies were ineffective; (iv)
all of the foregoing impaired Lifecore's ability to timely file
periodic reports with the SEC in compliance with NASDAQ listing
requirements; and (v) accordingly, the Company's financial position
and/or prospects were materially overstated.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lifecore securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about this investigation,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this CONTACT FORM, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
Telephone: (212) 699-1180
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
LINCARE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Morris
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET MORRIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LINCARE INC.,
Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting the unopposed motion for extension
of time and extending the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification until Aug. 12, 2024.
The Plaintiff's counsel has agreed to Lincare's requested
extension. Lincare requires this brief additional time to finalize
its review and arguments in opposition to the Plaintiff's
allegations in her Class Certification Motion, in which the
proposed classes are distinct from those in the Plaintiff's Second
Amended Class Action Complaint, and to demonstrate that class
certification is not appropriate in this case.
The requested extension will not conflict with any other deadline.
Lincare's request for additional time is made in good faith and not
for the purpose of delay.
On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Class Certification
Motion.
Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services
for patients in the home.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ro3fmI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
E-mail: rahcel@dapeer.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO, P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew A. Ceriale, Esq.
Jay B. Verona, Esq.
SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813)229-7600
Facsimile: (813) 229-1660
E-mail: mceriale@shumaker.com
jverona@shumaker.com
mhartz@shumaker.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Trial Dates, Pretrial Dates Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMY NEWMAN and ANTONIO
RINCON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, etc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03467-CAS-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Snyder entered an order
vacating trial dates and pretrial deadlines as follows:
-- The Feb. 25, 2025, trial dates are vacated;
-- The February 25, 2025 trial date in Newman is vacated;
-- All pretrial deadlines, including the deadline for Plaintiffs
in
Newman to file a Motion for Class Certification, are vacated;
and
-- The Oct. 28, 2024, Zoom Status Conference re: Settlement
previously set by the Court remains on calendar, along with the
Court the requirement that the Parties submit a status report
one
week before the Oct. 28, 2024, conference with the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KLe2az at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin W. Clark, Esq.
LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC
150 South Los Robles Ave., Suite 660
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 545-1925
E-mail: jclark@lbaclaw.com
LOUISIANA: Appeals Court Ruling in Voice Suit to 5th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES M. LEBLANC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Voice of the Experienced, a membership
organization, et al., on behalf of itself and its members,
Plaintiffs, v. James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-CV-1304,
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants for
violating their constitutional rights by forcing them to work on
the Farm Line agricultural labor program in unsafe and inhumane
conditions.
On May 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order, which the Court granted
in part through an Order entered by Judge Brian A. Jackson on July
2, 2024. The Court concluded that at this juncture, the
Plaintiffs' requested relief is overbroad, and that granting such
relief would be contrary to the mandate set forth under the PLRA.
Instead, the Court will order that the Defendants take immediate
measures to correct the glaring deficiencies in their heat-related
policies. The Defendants were directed to submit a memorandum
containing their proposed remedies.
The appellate case is captioned Voice of the Experienced v.
LeBlanc, Case No. 24-30420, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 3, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Voice of the Experienced, a membership
organization, on behalf of itself and its members, et al. are
represented by:
Samantha Nicole Bosalavage, Esq.
Lydia Wright, Esq.
PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
New Orleans, LA 7011
Telephone: (845) 826-1883
- and –
Oren Nimni, Esq.
RIGHTS BEHIND BARS
416 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 455-4339
Defendants-Appellants JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary, Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, et al. are represented by:
Jorge Benjamin Aguinaga, Esq.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1885 N. 3rd Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 506-3746
- and –
Andrew Blanchfield, Esq.
KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LIMITED
701 Main Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 383-3796
MACROGENICS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your MacroGenics, Inc. (NASDAQ:MGNX)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=92816&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
MacroGenics, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March
7, 2024 and May 9, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: During the class period, Defendants made material
misrepresentations about the safety data from its TAMARACK Phase 2
study of vobramitamab duocarmazine. On May 9, 2024, the investing
public learned that the drug was significantly more dangerous than
defendants had previously represented. Following this news, MGNX's
stock declined 77.4% due to a drop of $11.36/share.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in MacroGenics stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=92816&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
MARYLAND: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Sept. 6
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE CONNOR, et al. v.
MARYLAND DEPT. OF HEALTH, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01423-MJM (D.
Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to extend the
deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification, from Aug. 5, 2024, to Sept. 6, 2024.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs with the consent of Defendants, move
this Court to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss from Aug. 6, 2024, to Sept. 6,
2024.
An extension of the filing deadline is needed due to counsel for
MDH having competing litigation deadlines during the month of
August. Additionally, Principal Counsel Nicole Lugo Clark will be
out of the country during the first half of August.
An extension of the filing deadline is also needed due to counsel
for the Plaintiffs' workload and upcoming previously scheduled
leave of several counsel.
The case involves the purported failure of the Maryland Department
of Health and Secretary Herrera Scott to ensure timely
investigation of nursing home complaints as well as a failure to
conduct annual surveys of area nursing homes.
Maryland Department of Health promotes the health and safety of all
Marylanders through disease prevention, access to care and customer
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jaOymr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Debra Lynn Gardner, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 625-9409
Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
E-mail: gardnerd@publicjustice.org
- and -
Regan Bailey, Esq.
Liam McGivern, Esq.
JUSTICE IN AGING
1444 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 683-1990
E-mail: RBailey@justiceinaging.org
LMcGivern@justiceinaging.org
Sheila S. Boston, Esq.
Samuel Lonergan, Esq.
Robert Grass, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Telephone: (212) 836-8000
Facsimile: (212) 836-8689
E-mail: Sheila.Boston@arnoldporter.com
Samuel.Lonergan@arnoldporter.com
Robert.Grass@arnoldporter.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brandy J. Gray, Esq.
David E. Wagner, Esq.
Nicole Lugo Clark, Esq.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
300 W. Preston Street, Suite 302
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 767-1861
Facsimile: (410) 333-7894
E-mail: Brandy.Gray1@maryland.gov
david.wagner@maryland.gov
Nicole.LugoClark@maryland.gov
MASSAGE ENVY: McKinney-Drobnis Appeals Denied Attorneys' Fees Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BAERBEL MCKINNEY-DROBNIS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion for post-judgment award of fees in the
lawsuit entitled Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-06450-MMC, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action at issue in the appeal arose out of a dispute between
Massage Envy Franchising, LLC ("MEF"), a membership-based
spa-services company, and a putative nationwide class of current
and former members. The class complaint alleged that MEF began
periodically increasing membership fees in violation of the
membership agreement.
In their amended class complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that,
beginning in 2013, MEF locations began unilaterally increasing
membership dues without authorization. Many class members
discovered an initial price increase of $0.99 per month, and then
in some cases, a second, bigger monthly increase of $10 or more.
Based on the unauthorized membership fee increases, the amended
complaint alleged breach of contract, intentional interference with
contractual relations, and state consumer-protection-law
violations. The parties vigorously dispute whether the fee
increases violated the Membership Agreements that class members
signed.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Maxine M.
Chesney on May 31, 2024. The Court held that the issues presented
are questions of contract interpretation, and the Court does not
find the Plaintiffs' arguments persuasive. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment award of attorney's fees was
denied.
The appellate case is captioned McKinney-Drobnis, et al. v. Massage
Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 24-4095, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 3, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 8, 2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 19,
2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on September 23,
2024; and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due October 23,
2024. [BN]
MDL 2262: Bondholders' Bid to Distribute Net Settlement Funds OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Bondholder Plaintiffs'
motion for authorization to distribute the Net Settlement Funds in
the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2262, Master File No.
1:11-md-02262-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Case No.
12-CV-1025 (NRB).
An action is pending before the Court styled Ellen Gelboim and
Linda Zacher v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., Case No. 1025
(NRB), consolidated in In Re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Litig.,
No. 11-md-2262-NRB (the "Bondholder Action"). By Order dated Dec.
12, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the settlements with
Defendants Barclays Bank plc, UBS AG, HSBC Bank plc, Citibank,
N.A., and Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.,
and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (collectively, the
"Initial Settlements"), and final approval of the Plan of
Allocation.
By Order dated March 28, 2023, the Court granted final approval to
the settlements with Defendants MUFG Bank, Ltd., f/k/a Bank of
Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Credit Suisse Group AG, and The
Norinchukin Bank (collectively, the "Subsequent Settlements" and
together with the Initial Settlements, collectively the
"Settlements"), and final approval of the Plan of Allocation.
The Settlements have been administered according to the terms of
the Stipulations and the Orders of the Court. The deadline for
members of the Settlement Classes to submit Proof of Claim and
Release Forms to Epic Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc.
("Epic" or the "Claims Administrator") to seek to qualify for a
distribution from the Initial Settlements was Dec. 28, 2020. The
deadline for members of the Settlement Classes to submit Proof of
Claim and Release Forms to the Claims Administrator in order to
seek to qualify for a distribution from the Subsequent Settlements
was Feb. 27, 2023.
In satisfaction of due process requirements, all members of the
Settlement Classes, who filed claims that were in any way
ineligible or deficient were: (1) informed that their claims were
ineligible or deficient; and (2) given opportunities to correct any
deficiency prior to their claims being finally rejected. The
process of reviewing all Proofs of Claim for both the Initial
Settlements and the Subsequent Settlements has been completed.
The Settlement Class Counsel now seek authorization to distribute
the proceeds of the Net Settlement Funds to Authorized Claimants,
after the payment of any taxes and unpaid costs or expenses. The
Bondholder Plaintiffs have filed a motion for authorization to
distribute the Net Settlement Funds (the "Motion").
Judge Buchwald rules that the administrative determinations of Epiq
to accept the Timely Eligible Claims by Authorized Claimants, as
set forth in Exhibit A-1 to the Declaration of Stephanie
Amin-Giwner In Support of Motion for Initial Distribution
("Amin-Giwner Decl."), and the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims,
as set forth in Exhibit A-2, are adopted and accepted.
To facilitate the calculation and distribution of the Net
Settlement Funds to Authorized Claimants, the Court establishes
Nov. 30, 2023, as the Claim Bar Date. Any new Claims, any
adjustments to previously filed Claims that increase the Suppressed
Payment Amount, and any responses to Epiq's data integrity review
that are received after the Claim Bar Date are rejected.
The administrative determinations of Epiq to reject the claims on
the list of rejected or ineligible Claimants, as set forth in
Exhibit A-3 of the Amin-Giwner Declaration, are adopted and said
claims are rejected.
Estimated tax payments have been made quarterly from the Net
Settlement Funds to the Internal Revenue Service for income taxes
due and owing on the interest earned on the settlement funds while
in escrow, and annual income tax returns for the Settlement Funds
have been filed. Before distribution and before any subsequent
distributions, estimated income tax payments then due and owing on
the Net Settlement Funds will be paid to the Internal Revenue
Service, and any annual income tax returns for the Settlement Funds
will be filed.
Epiq is awarded $857,814.20 in payment of its fees and
reimbursement of its expenses incurred from Nov. 1, 2020, through
May 31, 2024. Epiq is also awarded $32,860.68 for its estimated
fees and expenses projected to be incurred in connection with the
Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Funds.
The balance of the Net Settlement Funds, after deducting payments
previously allowed or set forth herein, will be distributed to the
Authorized Claimants in accordance with the approved Plan of
Allocation on a pro rata basis in proportion to each Authorized
Claimant's Suppressed Payment Amount, as compared to the total
Suppressed Payment Amount of all Authorized Claimants as shown on
Exhibits A-1 and A-2 of the Amin-Giwner Declaration.
If the Claims Administrator, after consultation with Settlement
Class Counsel, determines that redistribution is not economically
feasible, and after payment of any further administration expenses
and taxes, the Claims Administrator is authorized to donate any
remaining funds in the Net Settlement Funds to Settlement Class
Counsel's cy pres designee the American Antitrust Institute, an
independent, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
The Court finds that the administration of the Settlements and the
proposed distribution of the Net Settlement Funds comply with the
terms of the Stipulations and the Plan of Allocation.
Judge Buchwald says this Order will not release any claim by the
Plaintiffs against the Claims Administrator with respect to any
distributions later discovered to have been made not substantially
in accordance with the Stipulations, the Plan of Allocation, or any
order of the Court.
Epiq and Class Counsel will make a final report to the Court in a
reasonable time after all of the Net Settlement Funds have been
distributed. Epiq is authorized to destroy the paper and electronic
copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year
after the distribution is completed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2r45zm8t from PacerMonitor.com.
MEISNER: Bid to Strike in Sinclair Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sinclair v. Meisner, et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-14042 (E.D. Mich., Filed Dec. 26, 218), the
Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion to strike.
The Defendant can and should raise its arguments in response to a
motion for class certification.
In accordance with the text-only order issued on July 19, 2024, the
Court shall expect a Response from Defendant regarding Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Consolidation by Aug.
7, 2024. Nothing prevents Defendant from submitting a response
sooner if it is prepared to.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC]
MIAMI DADE, FL: Rodriguez Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Miami Dade
County, Case No. 1:24-cv-20269 (S.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 23, 2024),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Becerra entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
-- The Plaintiff is granted leave to refile the Motion by no later
than Nov. 22, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Miami-Dade is a county located in the southeastern part of the U.S.
state of Florida.[CC]
MICKEYS & KIRBYS: Parties Seek to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN BEVIACQUA, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. MICKEYS &
KIRBYS LP and MK GENERAL PARTNER LLC, d/b/a KIRBY'S PRIME
STEAKHOUSE AND MICKEY MANTLE'S STEAKHOUSE, Case No.
6:24-cv-00114-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Parties ask the Court for the
issuance of an order:
(1) conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); and
(2) authorizing notice of this action to the following
individuals:
"All current and former Tip Credit Employees1 of Defendants
at
their WinStar restaurant at any time since March 28, 2021
("Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs")."
The Defendants continue to dispute any fault or liability and
preserve and do not waive any of their rights and defenses
(specifically including but not limited to their right to move to
decertify any of the collective actions conditionally certified by
the Court) at an appropriate time in this litigation).
By agreeing to resolve the issue of conditional class certification
and notice at this time and, with the Court's permission, reserving
the issue of whether Defendants will seek to de-certify any of the
conditional collective actions at a later date, the parties submit
that they are preserving judicial resources and ensuring the
efficient litigation of Plaintiff's claims and Defendants'
defenses.
On March 28, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Collective Action
Complaint under the FLSA seeking minimum wages, overtime wages, and
recovery of unlawfully retained tips for "Tip Credit Employees" at
Defendants' Kirby's Prime Steakhouse/Mickey Mantle's Steakhouse
restaurant.
Mickeys & Kirbys is a steakhouse.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AKXqrq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Brandon J. Burton, Esq.
Michael P. Hill, Esq.
BURTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
308 N.W. 13th, Ste. 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (800) 257-5533
Facsimile: (405) 232-0555
E-mail: brandon@burtonlaw.com
mike@burtonlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott Griffith, Esq.
Jason L. Cagle, Esq.
Erin Eileen Fry, Esq.
GRIFFITH DAVISON, PC
13737 Noel Rd, Ste 1200
Dallas, TX 75240-1335
Telephone: (972) 392-8900
Facsimile: (972) 392-8901
E-mail: sgriffith@griffithdavison.com
jcagle@griffithdavison.com
efry@griffithdavison.com
- and -
Kimberly Lambert Love, Esq.
Ashley F. Vinson, Esq.
TITUS HILLIS REYNOLDS LOVE
15 E Fifth St, Ste 3700
Tulsa, OK 74103-4334
Telephone: (918) 587-6800
Facsimile: (918) 587-6822
E-mail: klove@titushillis.com
avinson@titushillis.com
MINNESOTA: Goyette's Bid to Dismiss Individual Claims Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss
with prejudice individual capacity claims against the Defendant in
the lawsuit captioned JARED GOYETTE, et al., Plaintiffs v. DAVID
HUTCHINSON, Hennepin County Sheriff, in His Individual and Official
Capacity, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-01302-JRT-DTS (D. Minn.).
Nine journalists initiated a civil rights action against various
law enforcement officials and agencies for violating their
constitutional rights while covering the protests of the police
killings of George Floyd and Daunte Wright. Former Hennepin County
Sheriff David Hutchinson filed an interlocutory appeal challenging
the Court's denial of qualified immunity in the individual capacity
action against him.
The Plaintiffs now move to voluntarily dismiss their individual
capacity action against Hutchinson so that they can proceed to
trial against him in his official capacity without interlocutory
appellate review.
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction while Hutchinson's appeal is
pending, the Court will issue an indicative ruling that it will
grant the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss if the Eighth Circuit
remands for that purpose.
The Plaintiffs in this action are journalists and members of the
news media, who accuse various law enforcement officials and
agencies of violating their civil rights while reporting on the
protests following the police killings of George Floyd and Daunte
Wright. As relevant to this motion, the Plaintiffs named
then-Hennepin County Sheriff David Hutchinson as a defendant in
both his individual and official capacity.
The Court denied Hutchinson's motion for summary judgment on both
the individual and official capacity actions. The Court denied
Hutchinson qualified immunity on a subset of the individual
capacity claims. Hutchinson filed an interlocutory appeal of the
denial of qualified immunity and "intertwined legal issues"
implicating the official capacity action.
The Plaintiffs then moved to voluntarily dismiss their individual
capacity action against Hutchinson so that the case can proceed to
trial on the official capacity claims without interlocutory review
of the qualified immunity order. Hutchinson opposes the Motion to
Dismiss.
Although the legal tests for voluntary dismissal and the merits of
qualified immunity are different, any action the Court takes on
this Motion may affect the pending appeal--most notably, by
rendering the issues on appeal moot. Accordingly, the Court
concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss.
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, it may (1) defer
consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss; (2) deny the
Motion; or (3) issue an indicative ruling informing the Eighth
Circuit that it will grant the Motion on remand. Judge Tunheim says
the third option is appropriate here.
Mr. Hutchinson argues the Court should deny the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Dismiss because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) may not be
used for piecemeal dismissals of claims within a larger action. But
the Plaintiffs do not seek to dismiss only certain claims; rather,
they seek to dismiss all claims against Hutchinson in his
individual capacity, Judge Tunheim notes.
Judge Tunheim opines that Hutchinson's remaining arguments against
voluntary dismissal are more properly considered by the Eighth
Circuit than the Court. Hutchinson accuses the Plaintiffs of
gamesmanship, using voluntary dismissal of the individual capacity
claims to improperly dodge interlocutory review of the official
capacity claims. But all the Court's indicative ruling signals is
that it will grant the Motion on remand. Whether and when to remand
remains a question for the Eighth Circuit, Judge Tunheim points
out. The Eighth Circuit may, of course, hold the case for
interlocutory resolution on the merits if it so desires.
Finally, because the Plaintiffs move for voluntary dismissal with
prejudice and there are no exceptional circumstances, the Court
intends to grant the Motion without awarding costs or fees to
Hutchinson.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, the Court orders that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Voluntarily
Dismiss with Prejudice Individual Capacity Claims Against Defendant
Sheriff Hutchinson and for Indicative Ruling is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
1. The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss; and
2. The Court will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss if
the Eighth Circuit remands for that purpose pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 12.1.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
July 11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2hnjtcsy from
PacerMonitor.com.
Adam W. Hansen -- adam@apollo-law.com -- APOLLO LAW LLC, in
Minneapolis, MN 55401; Anthony Todd -- atodd@reedsmith.com --
Meredith Shippee -- mshippee@reedsmith.com -- Stephen D. Hamilton
-- shamilton@reedsmith.com -- Timothy R. Carwinski --
tcarwinski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, LLP, in Chicago, IL 60606;
Blake Shepard, Jr. -- blakeshepard@siegelbrill.com -- Mark H.
Thieroff -- markthieroff@siegelbrill.com -- SIEGEL BRILL, P.A., in
Minneapolis, MN 55401; Caitlin Anne Chambers --
cachambers@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, in Houston, TX 77010; Colin
R. Reeves -- colin@apollo-law.com -- APOLLO LAW LLC, in Brooklyn,
NY 11238; Edward B. Schwartz -- eschwartz@reedsmith.com --
Frederick Robinson -- frobinson@reedsmith.com -- Jamie Lanphear --
jlanphear@reedsmith.com -- Jonathan L. Marcus --
jonathan.marcus@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, in Washington, DC
20005; Erik Money -- emoney@fredlaw.com -- Karen Gotsdiner
Schanfield -- kschanfield@fredlaw.com -- Pari McGarraugh --
pmcgarraugh@fredlaw.com -- Rachel Dougherty --
rdougherty@fredlaw.com -- FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A., in Minneapolis,
MN 55402; Kevin Hara -- khara@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, LLP, in
San Francisco, CA 94105; Kevin C. Riach, in Minneapolis, MN 55412;
and Teresa J. Nelson -- tnelson@aclu-mn.org -- ACLU OF MINNESOTA,
in Minneapolis, MN 55414, for the Plaintiffs.
Devona L. Wells and Sarah C. S. McLaren, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, in Minneapolis, MN 55487, for the Defendant.
MPE PARTNERS: Walther Suit Seeks Sept. 20 Class Cert Bid Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Walther, Trent
Kumfer, and Jayme Lea, Megan Kelsey, Dave Lowe, Carol Whisler, and
Michele Porter, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the 80/20, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, v. John Wood, Brian Eagle, Patrick Buesching, Patrice Mauk,
Rodney Strack, MPE Partners II, L.P, and MPE Partners III, L.P.,
and Pareto Efficient Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC
(N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class
certification to Sept. 20, 2024.
On Sept. 14, 2023, the parties stipulated to a deadline of June 7,
2024, for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification.
MPE Partners is a United States-based investment firm.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qu9FQU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 Washington Ave. N., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
E-mail: cgokey@engstromlee.com
jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
MR. COOPER: Court Requires Class Cert Status, Scheduling Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CABEZAS, et al.,
v. MR. COOPER GROUP INC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02453-N (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey entered an order requiring class
certification status and scheduling conference as follows:
1. The requirement of Local Rule 23.2 that a motion for class
certification be filed within ninety (90) days of filing of a
class action complaint is suspended in this case pending
further
order of the Court.
2. The parties are directed to confer within 14 days of the date
of
this Order regarding the following matters, and report to the
Court within 14 days after the conference the parties'
position.
3. The parties are directed to hold the conference required by
Rule
26(f) within 14 days of the date of this Order and report to
the
Court as required by that Rule.
4. The parties' Rule 26(f) report does not need to include
suggested discovery deadlines. The Court's scheduling order
will
include default scheduling deadlines. The scheduling order
provides that the parties are free to alter those deadlines
by
written agreement, to conform to any agreed discovery plan
under
Rule 26(f) or otherwise, without the necessity of motion or
order.
Mr. Cooper Group Inc. provides financial services. The Company
offers home loan services for single-family residence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTdMLO at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Salom Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO SALOM, CATHERINE
PALAZZO as assignee for Ruben Palazzo, and PETER HACKINEN, on their
own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC And FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
on its own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00444-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order that:
(1) reserves ruling on class certification;
(2) allows discovery to take place on the relevant and material
issues actually in dispute;
(3) grants Plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental motion or
brief
at the conclusion of such discovery; and
(4) grants class certification after full briefing of the
issues.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should certify the proposed
Plaintiffs' Class and Subclasses because they are ascertainable and
they each satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.
This case satisfies the prerequisites for class certification.
Through a standardized course of conduct, the Defendant Nationstar
has collected thousands of unlawful pay-to-pay fees for its
residential, mortgage servicing borrowers to receive a payoff
statement related to residential mortgage debtors nationwide—fees
that were never expressly authorized under any of the original
standard-form mortgage agreements nor specifically permitted by
law, the Plaintiffs add.
All of Nationstar's collection of those "pay-to-pay" fees upon
borrowers seeking to obtain payoff statements violate the same
provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
broader, analog state laws of Washington and Maryland (i.e.
Washington Collection Agency Act ("WCAA"), and the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA")) which incorporate the
FDCPA.
The Plaintiffs are residents of Maryland and Washington State and
each previously had or still has a residential mortgage loan that
was serviced by (collected upon) Nationstar are on behalf of
another.
Nationstar is a residential mortgage servicer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGV9Vc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina L Henry, Esq.
SEATTLE CONSUMER JUSTICE, P.S.
10728 16th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98146
Telephone: (206) 330-0595
Facsimile: (206) 400-7609
E-mail: chenry@hdm-legal.com
- and -
Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, LLC
122 Blair Mill Road, Suite 1105
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 448-1304
E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com
NEVADA: Court Denies Malone's IFP Application and Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cristina D. Silva of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada in issued an order denying the Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis and motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled Domonic R. Malone, et al., Plaintiff v. Heather
Baca-Cook, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00745-CDS-BNW (D.
Nev.).
Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) inmate Domonic Ronaldo
Malone, #69418, has submitted a pro se civil-rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
Malone also filed a motion for class certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Judge Silva notes that Delbert Greene and Jamal Johnson are
identified as Plaintiffs in the complaint. According to the NDOC
inmate database, Greene is currently housed at High Desert State
Prison (HDSP), but Johnson is no longer incarcerated. The Court
does not have Johnson's current address.
For the reasons discussed in this Order, Judge Silva finds that
Malone has amassed over three strikes under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA). Because the complaint does not plausibly allege
that Malone faced an ongoing danger of serious physical injury when
he filed it, he cannot proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
Judge Silva, therefore, denies Malone's in forma pauperis
application and grants him an extension of time to pay the full
$405 filing fee if he wants to proceed with this action.
Judge Silva dismisses Plaintiffs Greene and Johnson from this
action without prejudice to each Plaintiff's ability to file his
own signed complaint, under a new case number, and either pay the
required filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status.
Judge Silva finds that Malone has amassed at least three strikes
under the PLRA. Malone commenced this civil-rights action on April
17, 2024. However, on Oct. 15, 2018, he commenced the civil-rights
action styled Malone v. Dzurenda, Case No. 2:18-cv-01994-JAD-NJK
(D. Nev.) (Malone I), while he was incarcerated at HDSP, among
other cases.
On more than three occasions before Malone initiated this action,
federal courts have dismissed civil actions and appeals that Malone
commenced while he was detained or incarcerated because the
proceedings were frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. So to be granted in forma pauperis status
and proceed in this action without prepaying the full $405 filing
fee, Malone's complaint must plausibly allege that he faced
"imminent danger of serious physical injury" when he filed it,
Judge Silva points out.
Judge Silva finds there are no factual allegations that Malone
faced "an ongoing danger" of "serious physical injury" when he
filed the complaint. Because the complaint does not satisfy Section
1915(g)'s imminent-danger exception, Judge Silva holds that Malone
must pre-pay the full $405 filing fee if he wants to proceed with
this civil-rights action. Malone's application to proceed in forma
pauperis is, therefore, denied.
Mr. Malone cannot bring claims on behalf of others like Johnson or
Greene, including in a representative capacity using Rule 23's
class-action device, because he is a pro se litigant not an
attorney, Judge Silva opines. The motion for class certification
is, therefore, denied.
Although the complaint's caption states that it is brought by
Malone, Johnson, and Greene, that pleading is signed by only
Malone, Judge Silva notes. And neither Greene nor Johnson has paid
the full $405 filing fee in this action or applied to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Considering that Malone has three strikes under the PLRA and is the
only Plaintiff who signed the complaint, Judge Silva dismisses
Johnson and Greene from this action without prejudice. This means
only Malone is permitted to proceed in this action currently. If
any other plaintiff wishes to proceed with his claims, he must file
a signed complaint with the court, under a new case number, and
either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a fully complete
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court, therefore, orders that Malone's application to proceed
in forma pauperis is denied because that state prisoner has three
strikes under the PLRA, and the complaint does not satisfy 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(g)'s imminent danger exception. This action
will be dismissed without prejudice unless Malone pays the full
$405 filing fee by Aug. 12, 2024.
The Court denies the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs
Delbert Greene and Jamal Johnson are dismissed without prejudice
from this action. If either Delbert Greene or Jamal Johnson wishes
to proceed with his claims, each person must file his own complaint
with the court, under a new case number, and either pay the full
$405 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in
forma pauperis.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Delbert Greene courtesy
copies of the approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
complaint and instructions for the same, the approved form
application to proceed in forma pauperis for an inmate and
instructions for the same, the complaint, and General Order No.
2021-05 by sending the same to HDSP's law library.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yrz2av2v from PacerMonitor.com.
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reilly, et al. v. City of
New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00521-AS-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a two-week
extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification, from July 23, 2024, to Aug. 6, 2024.
This is the Defendants' second request for an extension of this
deadline. The Plaintiffs consent to the requested extension, which
will not affect any other scheduled dates in this matter.
The extension of time is requested because the parties met and
conferred on Monday, July 22, 2024, to discuss a potential
stipulation consenting to conditional certification, which
stipulation would obviate the need for further briefing on the
Plaintiffs' motion.
Although the parties are mostly in agreement as to the contents of
such a stipulation, there remain a few issues that the parties are
currently working to resolve. If the instant request is granted, by
Aug. 6, 2024, either the Plaintiffs will file a stipulation for
conditional certification or the Defendants will, in lieu of an
opposition memorandum, file a letter outlining the remaining
disputes for the Court.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=onnNnk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Zachary T. Ellis, Esq.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-0839
E-mail: zellis@law.nyc.gov
NEW YORK, NY: Zarkower Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN ZARKOWER, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. CITY OF NEW YORK, PETER FORTUNE, Individually, SALVATORE
DIMAGGIO, Individually, ANDREW CHIN, Individually, PABLO DEJESUS,
Individually, and JOHN and JANE DOE 1 through 50, Individually,
(the names John and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names
are presently unknown), Case No. 1:19-cv-03843-ARR-JRC (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff, on Sept. 4, 2024, will move for an Order pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 54:
(1) granting final approval of the settlement Stipulation
(attached
as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Lissa Green-Stark);
(2) finally certifying the proposed settlement class under
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);
(3) finally appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel;
(4) approving the requests for the Class Representative service
award; and
(5) approving an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xQCGHK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lissa Green-Stark, Esq.
BRETT H. KLEIN, ESQ., PLLC
305 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 335-0132
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Miller Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMON X. MILLER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NEXTGEN
HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02043-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to the
entirety of Counts III, IV, V, VI, XI, XIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII,
XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXV, and is granted with
respect to Count XII as to Plaintiff Alvarado.
The Motion is denied with respect to the entirety of Counts VII,
VIII, IX, and XIV, and is denied with respect to Count XII as to
Plaintiff Appleton.
Based on all of this, the court concluded that the plaintiff had
failed to adequately plead reliance. The Court will do the same
here. Just as in In re Blackbaud, Plaintiff Brickle does not allege
that she was exposed to any representations by NextGen (either
directly or through her healthcare provider), that she ever
interacted with NextGen prior to receiving the letter notifying her
of the breach, or that she even knew that NextGen existed prior to
that point.25 Without any such allegation, the Court cannot find
that she justifiably relied on NextGen’s conduct or
representations.
Plaintiff Brickle has failed to allege that NextGen deprived her of
her decision-making power. Because Plaintiff Brickle does not
plausibly allege reliance and because reliance cannot be presumed
under a duty to disclose, Count XXV is dismissed for failure to
state a claim.
The case involves the breach of an electronic health record ("EHR")
system Between at least March 29, 2023 and April 14, 2023, a hacker
infiltrated the NextGen Office system and proceeded to access and
exfiltrate private information stored on NextGen systems. (Id. ¶¶
39, 45). The private information accessed and exfiltrated included
full names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers.
(Id.). The Plaintiffs are individuals whose private information was
accessed during the data breach.
NextGen is a health information technology company that develops
and provides EHR and practice management services to healthcare
providers.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EYa21d at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeals Class Certification Order in Behar Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order in the lawsuit entitled Jed Behar, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-3946, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
The case arises from contamination allegedly released by Litton
Systems, Inc., now owned by the Defendants, from Litton's
commercial manufacturing facility in Canoga Park between 1968 and
1970. The contaminants have spread to the groundwater, soil, and
soil vapor beyond the facility, forming a toxic groundwater plume
approximately 2.4 miles long and 1.8 miles wide. Plaintiffs Jed and
Alisa Behar live in a home directly above this groundwater plume.
They allege that toxins from the groundwater have the potential to
migrate up through the soil as vapor and flow through the
foundation and crawlspaces. The Plaintiffs also claim they have
suffered economic harm in the form of a diminished home value. The
Plaintiffs bring claims for negligence, trespass, and nuisance on
behalf of themselves and all other homeowners with houses directly
above the plume.
On Dec. 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Hernan D. Vera on July 1, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Behar, et al. v. Northrop Grumman
Corporation, et al., Case No. 24-4324, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 15, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents JED BEHAR, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Gideon Kracov, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV
801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Seeks to Strike Sinclair Class Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARION SINCLAIR, v.
OAKLAND COUNTY, Case No. 2:18-cv-14042-TGB-MJH (E.D. Mich.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order striking the Plaintiff's
class allegations from her Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(A).
The Plaintiff's property in Southfield, Michigan was foreclosed by
Oakland County for Plaintiff's failure to pay her property taxes.
Following the foreclosure, the Defendant Southfield claimed the
property pursuant to its thenexisting statutory right under
Michigan law.
The Plaintiff claims her property was worth more than the amount of
taxes and fees she owed at the time of foreclosure. As a result,
she claims the Defendants have unconstitutionally taken the surplus
equity without just compensation.
The Plaintiff also seeks to bring this action on behalf of persons
who are similarly situated.
Her Third Amended Complaint proposes the following class:
"[T]he owners of real property in Oakland County during the
relevant statutorily-limited time period who were subject to
the
unconstitutional process which resulted in the taking and/or
unconstitutional forfeiture of their Equity, but excluding
those
who have separately filed their own personal post-forfeiture
legal
actions in state or federal courts."
Oakland is a principal county of the Detroit metropolitan area,
containing the bulk of Detroit's northern suburbs.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bj2Fbt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
William H. Horton, Esq.
John R. Fleming, Esq.
GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C.
101 West Big Beaver Road, Tenth Floor
Troy, MI 48084-5280
Telephone: (248) 457-7000
E-mail: bhorton@gmhlaw.com
ODDITY TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Oddity Tech Ltd. (NASDAQ: ODD) securities
between July 19, 2023 and May 20, 2024. Oddity describes itself as
"a consumer tech platform that is built to transform the global
beauty and wellness market."
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Oddity Tech Ltd. (ODD) Misled Investors Regarding its AI Technology
and Capabilities
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Oddity overstated its AI technology
and capabilities, and/or the extent to which this technology drove
the Company's sales; (ii) Oddity's repeat purchase rates and
revenues were, at least in part, derived from unsustainable and
deceptive sales and advertising practices; (iii) Oddity downplayed
the true scope and severity of ongoing civil litigation against the
Company and/or its subsidiaries; and (iv) as a result, Oddity's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
The complaint alleges that on May 21, 2024, NINGI Research
published a report regarding Oddity, alleging that the Company
"completely misled investors about every critical aspect of its
business[.]" In particular, the Ningi Report alleged, inter alia,
that Ningi "talked to former employees who told [Ningi] that the
[Company's] AI is nothing but a questionnaire"; that Oddity's
lauded "repeat purchase rates" are attributable to "customers
unknowingly enter[ing] into non-cancelable plans" that allow the
Company "to recognize repeat purchases in the following quarters
even though the customers don't want the product"; and that Ningi
had "found hundreds of undisclosed lawsuits filed against ODDITY
and its subsidiaries in the US and Israel, frequently alleging
unpaid bills and violations of consumer protection laws," including
multiple class action lawsuits filed within the past several years.
On this news, Oddity's Class A ordinary share price fell $3.02 per
share, or 7.37%, to close at $37.97 per share on May 21, 2024.
Oddity's Class A ordinary share price continued to decline by an
additional $1.30 per share, or 3.42%, over the following two
consecutive trading sessions, closing at $36.67 per share on May
23, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Oddity Tech Ltd. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
September 17, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Oddity Tech Ltd. settles
or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
OLIN CORP: Must File Class Cert Responses in MPCC Suit by Oct. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miami Products & Chemical
Co. v. Olin Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385 (W.D.N.Y.,
Filed March 22, 2019), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered
an order that:
-- Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") shall file a
supplemental
memorandum of law in support of their pending class
certification
and Daubert motions, as discussed on the record on July 19,
2024,
by no later than August 30, 2024.
-- The Defendants shall file any responses thereto by no later
than
Oct. 2, 2024. IPPs shall file their reply by no later than Oct.
16, 2024.
The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.
Olin is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and
sodium hydroxide. The company traces its roots to two companies,
both founded in 1892: Franklin W. Olin's Equitable Powder Company
and the Mathieson Alkali Works.[CC]
PACIFIC COAST: Class Action Stayed Due to Bankruptcy Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California has stayed the class action case captioned as TRACY
WOODS, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING TOURS & CHARTERS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00414-CDB (E.D.
Calif.).
On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff Tracy Woods filed a class action
complaint in Kern County Superior Court in which she seeks on
behalf of herself and a putative class damages, injunctive relief,
and restitution. Plaintiff raises these claims against Pacific
Coast Sightseeing Tours & Charters, Inc., Coach USA, Inc., and
Megabus West LLC:
(1) failure to pay wages for hours worked and for overtime
wages;
(2) compensation for required meal periods not provided;
(3) compensation for required rest periods not provided;
(4) failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements;
(5) waiting time penalties;
(6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et
seq.; and
(7) penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, et seq.
Private Attorneys General Act.
On April 5, 2024, Defendants removed the action to the federal
District Court on the grounds that it has original jurisdiction
over the action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
and through diversity jurisdiction.
On July 5, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy indicating that on June 11 all Defendants filed for
bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware. The bankruptcy cases are being jointly administered
and remain pending under lead case number 24-11258 (MFW).
Pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, all actions against
a defendant who has filed a bankruptcy petition are automatically
stayed once the petition is filed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C95If8
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Shareholder Class Suit From Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sadhana Bharanidharan, writing for kidscreen, reports that in the
latest chapter of the Paramount Global/Skydance Media merger saga,
shareholders are challenging the terms of the deal by filing a
class-action lawsuit.
According to court documents dated July 24, the crux of the
complaint claims that the "unfair" merger will primarily benefit
Shari Redstone (who holds a controlling share in Paramount via
National Amusements), while costing other shareholders US$1.65
billion in damages when the merger closes.
Investor Scott Baker -- who owns more than 40,000 Class B shares in
Paramount -- filed the suit on behalf of other shareholders in
Delaware's Chancery Court, taking aim at Redstone, Skydance CEO
David Ellison and Paramount's board of directors for breaching
their fiduciary duties.
After roughly six months of negotiations, Skydance wrapped up its
deal to merge with Paramount earlier this month with a revised
US$8-billion agreement -- one that would pay Class B shareholders
US$15 per share. However, Baker's suit suggests that there "is not
enough cash in the deal to buy out all of the non-NAI Class B
shares." This would result in shareholders receiving a mix of cash
and Class B stock in the merged "New Paramount" company. "That
payout is only worth US$12.23 per Paramount Class B share," the
suit argues.
The Paramount-Skydance deal is expected to close by Q3 2025,
pending regulatory approvals and the 45-day "go-shop" window, which
will end next month. During this period of time, Paramount can
evaluate alternative bids -- with Skydance receiving US$400 million
if a better offer comes through. The suit also alleges that this
break-up fee is exceptionally high, representing 4.8% of the total
value of the merger. "Of the over 1,000 acquisitions in the US in
the last decade that were valued at more than US$1 billion, only 3%
had a break-up fee of 4.8% or more," the suit adds, noting that
this clearly reduces the likelihood of better bids surfacing. [GN]
PAWN AMERICA: Denial of Arbitration in Data Breach Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Melissa Thomas, on behalf of herself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
Randell Huff; Megan Murillo; Monique Derr; Paola Manzo, Plaintiffs
- Appellees v. Pawn America, Minnesota, LLC; Payday America, Inc.;
PAL Card Minnesota, LLC, Defendants - Appellants. In re: Pawn
America Consumer Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 23-2292 (8th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirms the denial of the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.
The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota assigned to the Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz,
Chief Judge.
The case is about what it takes to waive a contractual right to
arbitration. Here, three companies spent months litigating in
federal court before moving to compel arbitration. The district
court concluded that, by then, they had waived the right by
substantially invoking the litigation machinery, citing Donelson v.
Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., 999 F.3d 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2021).
The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion.
Sometime in September 2021, cybercriminals targeted a chain of
pawnshops, a payday lender, and a prepaid-card company. During the
attack, they uncovered customers' personal information, including
full names, addresses, birth dates, and social-security numbers.
Several weeks later, the companies alerted customers about the data
breach, which prompted the filing of three nationwide class-action
lawsuits in the District of Minnesota.
After agreeing to consolidate the cases, the companies moved to
dismiss. They claimed that the customers lacked standing, and that
the complaint did not state a claim. Nothing about arbitration. Nor
did they raise it over the next couple of months. Instead, the
companies fully briefed the issues raised in their motion to
dismiss, prepared a joint discovery plan, and requested a pretrial
conference.
There is disagreement about what happened next, according to the
Court of Appeals. The companies insist that they orally requested a
stay of discovery during the pretrial conference and promised to
file a motion to compel arbitration. The customers, on the other
hand, deny that the companies gave notice of their intent to
arbitrate. Unfortunately, there is no recording or transcript of
the proceedings, which the magistrate judge conducted by
teleconference.
The only other clues about what happened came from the magistrate
judge's docket entry and the order staying discovery. The former
summarized what happened, and the latter expanded on it by
discussing the significant issues raised as to the customers'
standing. Delaying discovery was the answer, at least until the
district court had a chance to decide whether to grant the motion
to dismiss. Still no mention of arbitration.
Several weeks later, the district court held a hearing on the
motion to dismiss. Despite allegedly promising at the pretrial
conference that a motion to compel would be forthcoming, the
companies had yet to file one. Arbitration did not come up during
the hour-long hearing, not even once.
Two more months passed before the companies finally gave formal
notice of their intent to arbitrate. The customers protested, so
they rushed to file a motion before the parties entered mediation.
They acknowledged that timeliness may be an issue, because the
customers thought the companies had waived their right.
Following a hearing on the motion, the district court agreed. In
the court's view, the companies had no credible explanation for
why, if they had determined at the pretrial conference that they
were going to compel arbitration, they sat on their hands only to
decide three months later that it was urgent that they act to
protect the right to arbitrate. That made no sense.
The Court of Appeals must decide whether their conduct during the
delay amounted to waiver.
Circuit Judge David Stras, writing for the Panel, notes that the
Panel had previously addressed what it takes to waive arbitration.
This time is different, however, because of the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022).
In sum, Judge Stras says, the Panel's pre-Morgan three-part test
now has two parts, but otherwise remains the same. To evaluate
whether a party has intentionally relinquished or abandoned the
right to arbitration, courts must determine whether it (1) knew of
its "existing right" and (2) acted "inconsistently with" it. And
one way to act inconsistently with it is to substantially invoke
the litigation machinery rather than promptly seek arbitration.
That is exactly what the companies did, Judge Stras points out.
They all but admit to having knowledge of their contractual right
to arbitrate long before they formally raised it. Their position,
after all, is that it came up during the pretrial conference. Yet
it is undisputed they took no further action until months later,
after the hearing on the motion to dismiss.
The district court, for its part, thought the companies knew even
earlier: as soon as customers signed the contracts they drafted.
From that point on, under the doctrine of constructive knowledge,
they are presumed to know what was in them. Claiming ignorance of a
contract's contents is rarely a recipe for success, Judge Stras
says.
In any event, when the companies learned of their arbitration right
is less important than what they did afterward. In the three months
following the pretrial conference, they participated in an
hour-long motion-to-dismiss hearing, stipulated to a discovery
plan, and scheduled a mediation, which are hardly the actions of
litigants trying to move promptly for arbitration, Judge Stras
points out. By any measure, their actions substantially invoked the
litigation machinery.
The Panel recognizes that the chaos caused by the ransomware attack
may have made the circumstances more difficult. But even if it took
the companies "considerable time and effort" to locate the
contracts, they have yet to explain why they sat on their hands for
several months afterward, Judge Stras says. Having followed this
course, Judge Stras points out that they must now live with the
consequences.
The Court of Appeals, accordingly, affirms the district court's
order.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Opinion dated July 11,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bp8d4d7d.
PFIZER INC: AF of L AGC Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AF OF L AGC BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, et al. are taking an
appeal from a court order denying their motion for class
certification and granting the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit entitled Burlington Drug Co., Inc. et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Pfizer Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3-12-cv-02389, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The matter concerns a class action suit against Pfizer, Inc.,
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner-Lambert Co., Warner-Lambert
Co., LLC, Ranbaxy, Inc., and other Defendants in connection with an
alleged anticompetitive scheme to delay market entry of generic
versions of Lipitor, a cholesterol drug. The Named Consumers
initially filed their suit in the California Superior Court in
2011, and the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated and transferred the case, along with other complaints,
to the Court in 2012. Before the Court are four direct purchaser
actions and several "tag-along" direct and indirect purchaser
actions.
On Mar. 15, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
On June 6, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the issue of whether or not the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) would have granted Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA even
a day earlier on Nov. 29, 2011 if not for the disputed Settlement
Agreement through an Order entered by Judge Peter G. Sheridan.
The Court ruled that there is no genuine issue of material fact,
and summary judgment is appropriate in this case.
The appellate case is captioned AF of L AGC Building Trades Welfare
Plan, et al. v. Pfizer Inc, et al., Case No. 24-2256, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 17,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants AF OF L AGC BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0040
- and –
Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER
Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 981-4000
- and –
Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
- and –
Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON
457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 700
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 675-1926
- and –
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Defendants-Appellees PFIZER INC., et al. are represented by:
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
Jessica K. Formichella, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY & FALANGA
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 757-1100
- and –
William T. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (201) 704-0451
- and –
Dimitrios T. Drivas, Esq.
Michael J. Gallagher, Esq.
Brendan G. Woodard, Esq.
WHITE & CASE
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 819-8200
(212) 819-8929
(212) 819-8548
PFIZER INC: Welfare Plan Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AF OF L AGC BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, et al. are taking an
appeal from a court order denying their motion for class
certification and granting the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit entitled Burlington Drug Co., Inc. et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Pfizer Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3-12-cv-02389, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The matter concerns a class action suit against Pfizer, Inc.,
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner-Lambert Co., Warner-Lambert
Co., LLC, Ranbaxy, Inc., and other Defendants in connection with an
alleged anticompetitive scheme to delay market entry of generic
versions of Lipitor, a cholesterol drug. The Named Consumers
initially filed their suit in the California Superior Court in
2011, and the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated and transferred the case, along with other complaints,
to the Court in 2012. Before the Court are four direct purchaser
actions and several "tag-along" direct and indirect purchaser
actions.
On Mar. 15, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
On June 6, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the issue of whether or not the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) would have granted Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA even
a day earlier on Nov. 29, 2011, if not for the disputed Settlement
Agreement through an Order entered by Judge Peter G. Sheridan.
The Court ruled that there is no genuine issue of material fact,
and summary judgment is appropriate in this case.
The appellate case is captioned AF of L AGC Building Trades Welfare
Plan, et al. v. Pfizer Inc, et al., Case No. 24-2257, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 17,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants AF OF L AGC BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0040
- and –
Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER
Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 981-4000
- and –
Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
- and –
Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON
457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 700
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 675-1926
- and –
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Defendants-Appellees PFIZER INC., et al. are represented by:
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
Jessica K. Formichella, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY & FALANGA
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 757-1100
- and –
William T. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (201) 704-0451
- and –
Dimitrios T. Drivas, Esq.
Michael J. Gallagher, Esq.
Brendan G. Woodard, Esq.
WHITE & CASE
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 819-8200
(212) 819-8929
(212) 819-8548
PHOTOMYNE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims Photomyne, the developer of several
photo-editing apps, has violated an Illinois privacy law by
collecting, storing and using residents' facial scans without
authorization.
According to the 27-page lawsuit, the apps operated by the Israeli
company -- namely, its Photo Scan by Photomyne, Photo Scanner Plus,
Photo Family Tree and Face/Face Photo Similarity apps -- capture,
store and utilize users' biometric information despite failing to
provide notice or obtain consent before doing so. The privacy suit
alleges Photomyne's conduct has directly violated Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which aims to protect
consumers from the misuse of their sensitive biometric data.
Per the case, the photo-editing features in Photomyne's apps allow
users to recognize and tag people's faces in pictures, detect and
sharpen blurry faces, generate "imaginary family memories" with
artificial intelligence technology and more.
Once a user takes a selfie or uploads a photo in one of the apps,
Photomyne's software scans and stores the facial geometry of each
person whose face appears in the picture, the complaint shares. The
biometric data is then used to digitally apply any of the app's
various features, the filing says.
The lawsuit contends that the app developer has breached the BIPA's
clear requirements by failing to notify Illinois users of its
biometric data collection practices and inform them how long and
for what purpose the information will be stored and used.
In addition, the suit claims the company has unlawfully failed to
establish public guidelines that detail its data retention and
destruction policies.
The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, says he has used the Photo
Scan and Photo Scanner Plus apps to edit pictures in the past. By
doing so, the man had his unique facial geometry scanned and
captured by the defendant without his knowledge or consent, the
case charges.
The Photomyne privacy lawsuit looks to represent any Illinois
residents whose facial geometry was collected, obtained, stored
and/or used by the app operator within the state. [GN]
PINI INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid in Pinn Extended by 45 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY PINN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PINI INSURANCE,
LLC, and LEADZER INSURANCE SERVICES, Case No. 1:24-cv-20751-PCH
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Huck entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend the class certification and
associated deadlines by 45 days.
-- The expert report, fact witness list, and class certification
motion deadlines are extended by 45 days.
Pini Insurance provides a one-stop solution for Car Insurance,
Business and Home Insurance requirements.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4E94mu at no extra
charge.[CC]
PINI INSURANCE: Pinn Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY PINN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PINI INSURANCE,
LLC, and LEADZER INSURANCE SERVICES, Case No. 1:24-cv-20751-PCH
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting an extension of the expert report, fact witness list, and
class certification motion deadlines by 45 days.
In light of Pini Insurance's untimely and otherwise apparently
incomplete discovery responses, the Plaintiff requires this
deposition to obtain information and identify documents necessary
for class certification. However, Mr. Fernandez and his counsel are
not available for deposition until mid-August, at the earliest.
The requested extension will not impact the trial date or other
case deadlines.
No party will be prejudiced by the extension. To the contrary, in
light of Pini Insurance's failure to adequately participate in
discovery, the Plaintiff will be prejudiced in the absence of the
extension.
This is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act's National Do Not Call Registry provision.
On April 30, 2024, the parties participated in a Rule 26 conference
during which the Defendant's counsel made certain representations
regarding facts underlying the violative calls to the Plaintiff and
putative class members, including regarding the involvement in the
calling of two individuals and entities.
On May 10, 2024, the Plaintiff served a first set of written
discovery on Pini Insurance.
On June 12, 2024, when Pini Insurance failed to timely respond to
the Plaintiff's discovery, the Plaintiff's counsel initiated a meet
and confer, resulting in Pini Insurance serving written discovery
responses on June 26, 2024.
Pini Insurance's discovery responses, in addition to being
untimely, are inconsistent with the Defendant's counsel's
representations during the parties' Rule 26 conference regarding
Pini Insurance's knowledge regarding the calls at issue and are
otherwise seemingly incomplete. Pini Insurance also did not serve a
single responsive document with its discovery responses.
As a result, the Plaintiff has requested to depose Pini Insurance's
Manager, Guillermo Fernandez, who verified Defendant's discovery
responses.
Pini offers property, business, and liability, boat, auto,
commercial, truck, motorcycle, life, and health insurance
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b9fGqA at no extra
charge.[CC]
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
PORSCHE AG: Klein Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON KLEIN, an
Individual, ISAAC LEE, an Individual and JOHNSON WU, an Individual,
on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Dr.
Ing. H.C.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-10079-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on Feb. 7, 2025, for certification of the following Rule
23(b)(2) and (3) class:
"All persons who purchased a Porsche Macan vehicle, other than
a
wholly electric Macan, regardless of trim level, between Jan.
1,
2014 and present, within California."
The class excludes counsel representing the class and all
persons
employed by said counsel, governmental entities, Ljubljana
Inter
Auto d.o.o., Porsche Cars North America, Inc, or Dr. Ing. h.c.
F.
Porsche AG (including their officers, directors, affiliates,
legal
representatives, employees, coconspirators, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns), any judicial officer presiding over
this matter, the members of their immediate families and
judicial
staff, and any individual whose interests are antagonistic to
other class members.
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass consisting of
"All persons who purchased a model year 2015-2018 Macan S, GTS,
or
Turbo Porsche Macan."
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a nationwide Rule
23(c)(4) issue class of
"All persons who purchased a Porsche Macan vehicle, other than
a
wholly electric Macan, regardless of trim level, between Jan.
1,
2014 and present, within the United States"
and a subclass of
"All persons who purchased a model year 2015- 2018 Macan S,
GTS,
or Turbo" on the issues of the existence of the suspension and
oil
leak defects, whether the defects pose a safety hazard, and
whether Porsche made misrepresentations and/or concealed
material
facts regarding the Macan.
The Plaintiffs further request that Allison Klein, Isaac Lee, and
Johnson Wu be appointed as the class representatives and that
Filippo Marchino, Richard W. Davis, Carlos X. Colorado, and Thomas
E. Gray of The X-Law Group, P.C. be appointed as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs) seek certification of this class action against
Defendants Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North
America, Inc. ("Porsche") pertaining to two sets of design defects
in the Porsche Macan: a suspension defect that affects all Macans
and an oil-leak from the timing chain cover of the engine in
certain configurations of certain model years of the Macan.
In December of 2016 Klein purchased a 2017 Macan S from Porsche of
Downtown LA. In May 2019 Klein first learned her Macan suffered
from the oil leak defect, and in May 2020 she first learned the
upper control arm bushings were torn.
Dr. Ing is a German automobile manufacturer specializing in luxury,
high-performance sports cars, SUVs and sedans.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kiw0cQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Filippo Marchino, Esq.
Richard W. Davis, Esq.
Thomas E. Gray, Esq.
Carlos X. Colorado, Esq.
THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C.
625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (213) 599-3380
Facsimile: (213) 599-3370
E-mail: FM@XLAWX.com
RD@XLAWX.com
TG@XLAWX.com
CC@XLAWX.com
PORSCHE AG: Plaintiffs Can File Declaration Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON KLEIN, an
Individual, ISAAC LEE, an Individual, and JOHNSON WU, an
Individual, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Dr. Ing. H.C.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and
PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-10079-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered
an order granting the plaintiffs' application for leave to file
under seal portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and supporting declarations.
The Court, having duly considered the Plaintiffs' Application For
Leave To File Under Seal Portions Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Class
Certification And Supporting Declarations and the Defendant's
Declaration in Support of Sealing, hereby grants in part the
Application and orders the Clerk of Court to seal the following
documents:
a. Declaration of Filippo Marchino;
b. Expert Report of Werner J.A. Dahm;
c. Expert Report of Professor Anthony M. Waas; and
d. Expert Report of Ted Stockton.
Dr. Ing is a German automobile manufacturer specializing in luxury,
high-performance sports cars, SUVs and sedans.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qmiea8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PREMIER FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Wesbanco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Premier Financial Corp. (Nasdaq: PFC) relating to its
proposed merger with WesBanco, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, shareholders will receive 0.80 shares of WesBanco common
stock per share of Premier Financial stock they own.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/premier-financial-corp/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
RECOVER-CARE HEALTHCARE: Phase 1 Sched Order Entered in Vasquez
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE VASQUEZ, et al,
on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly
situated employees, v. RECOVER-CARE HEALTHCARE, LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02183-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Rachel Schwartz
entered a Phase 1 Scheduling Order:
Event Deadline/Setting
Exchange of documents identified in Rule Aug. 9, 2024
26(a)(1) disclosures
Motion to Amend Aug. 19, 2024
Conditional certification experts disclosed Aug. 29, 2024
Rebuttal experts on conditional Sept. 27, 2024
Certification disclosed
All Phase I discovery Complete Oct. 25, 2024
Recover-Care is a long term care operator.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hyICoM at no extra
charge.[CC]
REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Class Settlement in Bickham Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMYN BICKHAM, AMANDA
BAILEY, AND LISA GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. REPROSOURCE FERTILITY DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-11879-GAO (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge George
O'Toole, Jr. entered an order granting final approval of class
action settlement.
Certification of the Settlement Class for Purposes of Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the
Settlement, this Action as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class defined as:
"All natural persons whose Personal Information was compromised
in
the Security Incident and to whom ReproSource sent written
notice
of the Security Incident in or around October 2021."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judges presiding
over the Action and members of their families; (2) ReproSource,
its
subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and
any
entity in which ReproSource or its parents, have a controlling
interest, and its current or former officers and directors; (3)
natural persons who properly execute and submit a request for
exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and (4)
the successors or assigns of any such excluded natural person."
The Plaintiffs Jasmyn Bickham, Amanda Bailey, and Lisa Gordon are
appointed, for settlement purposes only, as representatives for the
Settlement Class for purposes of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Pastor Law Office PC, Kind Law, and
Freedom Law Firm are hereby appointed, for settlement purposes
only, as counsel for the Settlement Class pursuant to Rules
23(c)(1)(B) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$416,666.67, and reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount
of $16,229.31, and such amounts shall be paid by the Settlement
Administrator pursuant to and consistent with the terms of the
Settlement.
The Class Representatives are awarded Service Awards in the amount
of $2,500 each (for a total of $7,500), and such amounts shall be
paid by the Settlement Administrator pursuant to and consistent
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
ReproSource is a national leader in specialty fertility diagnostic
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kxGFV8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RUE DE CAN: Vega Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUE DE CAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-08054 (D.N.J., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.ruedecan.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Rue De Can, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SASKATCHEWAN: Court Denies Intervenors in Forced Sterilization Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for the Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench dismissed the applications for
intervenor status by Amnesty Canada and the Native Women's
Association of Canada (NWAC) in a class action case alleging forced
sterilization of Aboriginal women.
The plaintiffs in this class action claimed that Aboriginal women
had been sterilized without proper or informed consent through
tubal ligation procedures following childbirth, situating these
allegations within a broader context of systemic racism and human
rights violations.
The plaintiffs asserted that forced sterilizations are a
manifestation of institutional, systemic racism and a violation of
human rights, including breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. They sought to have
this action certified as a class action against the Saskatchewan
Health Authority (SHA). They proposed a class including all
Aboriginal women who were sterilized in SHA hospitals without
providing proper and informed consent.
Amnesty Canada sought to file a written brief of the law, affidavit
evidence, and present oral arguments, focusing on applying
international human rights law to the certification issues. NWAC
intended to file a written brief of law, an expert report, and
present oral arguments, emphasizing the systemic discrimination
faced by Indigenous women and the harms caused by such
discrimination.
The Court of King's Bench analyzed the intervenor applications
under Rule 2-13 and Rule 2-12 of the King's Bench Rules,
respectively. The principles guiding the court's discretion include
the need for the intervenor to show a sufficient interest in the
outcome of the matter, demonstrate that their involvement would
advance or improve the process, and not unduly prejudice any party
or transform the court into a political arena.
The court acknowledged the interests of Amnesty Canada and NWAC in
the issues at hand. However, the court found neither organization
would contribute additional perspectives or expertise, which the
plaintiffs did not provide. The plaintiffs' submissions already
covered the potential application of international human rights law
and the systemic issues affecting Aboriginal women's access to
justice.
The court concluded that Amnesty Canada and NWAC's involvement
would add unnecessary delay and complexity to the proceedings
without offering significant benefits. Consequently, the court
dismissed the applications for intervenor status at the
certification hearing. NWAC's application to intervene in future
hearings was dismissed without prejudice, allowing for the
possibility of re-application at a later stage. [GN]
SAVE MART: Court Vacates Class Certification Deadlines in Baker
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE BAKER, et al.,
v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-04645-AMO (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order
vacating class certification deadlines and directing the parties to
meet and confer on necessary adjustments to the class certification
briefing schedule.
The parties shall submit either a stipulation and proposed order or
notice of their respective positions within 7 days of this order.
The Court denies as moot save Mart's motion to revise class
certification briefing deadlines.
The Court agrees that the request for additional depositions is
premature at this time as Save Mart has only taken two depositions
and scheduled two additional depositions.
Save Mart should proceed to notice the remaining depositions under
Rule 30's default discovery limits. If necessary, after taking the
ten depositions permitted under Rule 30, Save Mart may seek a
stipulation from Plaintiffs or move the Court for additional
depositions and show good cause why the additional depositions are
needed.
Given the upcoming deadline for Save Mart's opposition to the
motion for class certification, if Save Mart wishes to depose any
of the declarants, it must notice its remaining 6 depositions
within 5 days of this order.
The deponents shall be made available for deposition within 10 days
of service of the notice. Following completion of the 6
depositions,1 Save Mart may, after meeting and conferring with
Plaintiffs, seek leave of Court (by way of a joint discovery letter
brief) to conduct additional depositions that are proportional to
the needs of the case.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ap4Kvz at no extra
charge.[CC]
SILK ROAD: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Boston Scientific
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Silk Road Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: SILK), relating to
its proposed merger with Boston Scientific Corporation and Seminole
Merger Sub. Under the terms of the agreement, Silk Road
stockholders will receive $27.50 in cash for each share they own.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
SNEAKER ROOM: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Vega Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SNEAKER ROOM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-08052 (D.N.J., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.snkrroom.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Sneaker Room, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL: Investors Block Dismissal Motion of Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Paula Pereira, writing for Coint Telegraph, reports that FTX's
class action lawyers have filed a motion opposing Sullivan &
Cromwell's effort to dismiss the lawsuit against them. The
plaintiffs claim that Sullivan & Cromwell went beyond standard
legal practices to actively facilitate FTX's fraudulent activities.
The law firm, also known as S&C, is overseeing the FTX bankruptcy
proceedings and served as outside counsel to the exchange in
several deals.
According to court documents filed on July 29, S&C lawyers "were
eager to craft not only creative, but misleading strategies that
furthered FTX's misconduct." The plaintiffs requested the court to
deny S&C's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to
discovery and trial.
The lawsuit against S&C, filed in February, seeks damages for
several counts, including civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting
fraud, and aiding and abetting fiduciary breaches.
S&C's motion to dismiss argues that the suit is based on
speculative allegations and lacks factual basis. The law firm cited
its role in the FTX bankruptcy proceedings, noting that the
Delaware Bankruptcy Court found S&C was a "disinterested party" in
the bankruptcy case and asserting that FTX victims will be "paid in
full."
According to the motion opposing the dismissal, "neither of those
reasons have anything to do with whether the MDL Plaintiffs state
sufficient facts and allegations in the Complaint."
In a previous statement to Cointelegraph, a spokesperson for S&C
said it had "never served as primary outside counsel to any FTX
entity" and had a "limited and largely transactional relationship
with FTX and certain affiliates prior to the bankruptcy."
An earlier independent investigation concluded that S&C was unaware
of the severe financial issues and underlying fraud that caused the
exchange's collapse.
The FTX -- S&C relationship
According to the plaintiffs, the relationship between FTX and S&C
was initiated by Ryne Miller, a former S&C partner who became FTX's
general counsel in August 2021.
In a January court filing, former FTX chief regulatory officer
Daniel Friedberg said the exchange funneled at least 20 cases to
S&C under Miller's command. As he stated:
"Mr. Miller told me that it was very important for him to direct a
lot of business to S&C because he wanted to rejoin them as a
partner after his time with the Debtors."
The complaint also mentions that Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO
of FTX, often operated out of S&C's New York offices.
S&C was directly involved in FTX's acquisition of LedgerX and
Voyager Digital. In November 2022, the exchange filed for
bankruptcy protection following a bank run.
"S&C involvement with FTX has drawn scrutiny from Senators, FTX
Insiders and the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, Professor Lipson and FTX
customers," FTX creditor Sunil Kavuri told Cointelegraph. "There
are pending lawsuits that S&C filed the bankruptcy without proper
authority," he added. [GN]
TAYLOR, MI: Flummerfelt's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge F. Kay Behm of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend the complaint in the lawsuit titled JUDY
FLUMMERFELT, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-10067-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich.).
Plaintiffs Judy Flummerfelt, Frances Ridenour, Anthony Hamilton,
and Holly Hamilton, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated in the City of Taylor, filed suit alleging violations of
the United States Constitution and Michigan law on Jan. 11, 2022.
They later amended their complaint. The claims in the Amended
Complaint arise from the tax foreclosure of the named Plaintiffs'
homes located in the City of Taylor. They allege that, through
illegal conspiracies, they were denied the surplus value or equity
in their foreclosed homes. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the
Fifth and Eighth Amendments, due process, and Michigan law.
The City of Taylor, Wayne County, the Awad Defendants, and Sollars
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on the motions, as
modified, and concluded in relevant part that (1) the Plaintiffs
conceded that the federal takings claim against Wayne County was
time-barred; and (2) Sixth Circuit authority required the Court to
abstain on the state law takings claim under the Pullman abstention
doctrine (R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500-01
(1941)).
The Plaintiffs now move to amend the complaint, contrary to the
conclusions. First, the Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their
federal takings claim against Wayne County, stating the Court did
not consider applicable tolling principles. Second, the Plaintiffs
contend that Pullman abstention should no longer be applied to its
inverse condemnation claim under the Michigan Constitution.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, the Court rules
that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend to add a federal
takings claim is denied as futile. Further, while the Court denies
the motion for leave to amend the complaint as to the Michigan
inverse condemnation claim, the Court will no longer abstain from
deciding this claim on the merits based on the conclusion that
Pullman abstention no longer applies.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 24,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/36ucbxav from
PacerMonitor.com.
TENNESSEE GAS: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO.,
LIMITED v. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C., ET AL., Case No.
2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl Barbier
entered an order granting joint motion to continue submission
date:
-- The submission date for Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification
is continued to Aug. 21, 2024.
Tennessee Gas provides gas transportation and storage services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UZilej at no extra
charge.[CC]
TENNESSEE: Patton Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY PATTON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Bradley Patton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mike Fitzhugh, in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Rutherford County, Tennessee, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00637, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Rutherford County Circuit
Court judges James Turner, Barry Tidwell, and Howard Wilson,
Rutherford County Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh, and Rutherford County
Circuit Court Clerk Melissa Harrell alleging violations of his
rights to due process and non-excessive bail.
On Nov. 3, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, which the Court
granted through an Order entered by Judge William L. Campbell, Jr.
on July 9, 2024. The Court held that Mr. Patton lacks standing, and
his case is now moot. Thus, the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction and it does not need to address the other bases for
dismissal argued by the Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned Bradley Patton v. Mike Fitzhugh, et
al., Case No. 24-5639, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on July 16, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRADLEY PATTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Paul Andrew Justice, III, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW OFFICE
1902 Cypress Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Telephone: (615) 419-4994
Defendants-Appellees MIKE FITZHUGH, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Rutherford County, Tennessee, et al. are represented
by:
Laws McCullough Bouldin, Esq.
HUDSON, REED & CHRISTIANSEN
16 Public Square, N.
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Telephone: (615) 971-9398
- and –
Eric Donica, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202
Telephone: (615) 741-7226
TENNESSEE: Thomas Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARVIN L. THOMAS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Carvin Thomas, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Richard Montgomery, as Chairman of the Tennessee Board of Parole,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01204, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
The Plaintiffs bring this case against the members of the Tennessee
Board of Parole, arguing that the Board of Parole's use of a risk
assessment tool called "STRONG-R" and the Defendants' alleged
inability to challenge the STRONG-R assessment violates their due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
On Jan. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 8, 2024.
On June 17, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge William L. Campbell, Jr.
The Court held that the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims for
which relief can be granted under federal law. Thus, the case is
hereby dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned Carvin Thomas, et al. v. Richard
Montgomery, et al., Case No. 24-5637, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on July 16, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CARVIN L. THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, et al. are represented by:
Paul Andrew Justice, III, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW OFFICE
1902 Cypress Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Telephone: (615) 419-4994
Defendants-Appellees RICHARD MONTGOMERY, as Chairman of the
Tennessee Board of Parole, et al. are represented by:
Adam Nicholas Tune, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202
Telephone: (615) 486-9024
TEXAS PRIDE: Veira Seeks Waste Disposal Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIRK VEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS PRIDE DISPOSAL SOLUTIONS, LLC and
KEVIN ATKINSON, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02785 (S.D. Tex., July
26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Veira has been employed by the Defendants as a waste
disposal driver at their Houston location since approximately
November 2021.
Texas Pride Disposal Solutions, LLC is a waste disposal and
recycling services provider in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
UNION DES ASSOCIATIONS: N.D. California Dismisses Losson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit titled JERRY LOSSON, Plaintiff v. UNION DES
ASSOCIATIONS EUROPEENNES DE FOOTBALL, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-06500-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Jerry Losson signed up to watch European football on
UEFA.com and UEFA.tv websites operated by Defendant Union des
Associations Europeennes de Football, a non-profit organization
governing 55 national football associations across Europe. He
alleges UEFA shared his video viewing history with Meta, among
other companies, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act,
18 U.S.C. Section 2710(a)(4).
After considering the parties' submissions, and having had the
benefit of oral argument on July 11, 2024, the Court grants UEFA's
motion to dismiss on forum nonconveniens grounds. Judge Corley
opines that Losson's claims are connected with the UEFA.com Terms &
Conditions to which he agreed; so, the forum-selection clause
requiring all disputes be brought in Switzerland applies.
Judge Corley notes that it is undisputed Losson agreed to
UEFA.com's Terms & Conditions when he signed up with UEFA.com. It
is equally undisputed those Terms & Conditions included a forum
selection clause requiring all disputes in connection with the
Terms & Conditions be litigated in Switzerland.
The Terms & Conditions included a "Privacy" section that linked to
UEFA's Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy and stated that by using
the UEFA platforms, the user agrees to those policies. So, UEFA
moves to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens, that is,
that this action must be brought in Switzerland per the parties'
agreement.
By its plain language, the forum-selection clause applies to all
disputes "in connection with" the Terms & Conditions. Judge Corley
finds that Losson's claims fall squarely within the forum-selection
clause's scope.
Mr. Losson does not argue fraud or overreaching; nor does he argue
contravention of a strong public policy. Instead, he argues, he and
the putative class would be denied of their day in court because he
would have no remedy under the laws of Switzerland. He emphasizes
that Switzerland does not have a procedure comparable to the Rule
23 class action procedure available in the United States, and that
UEFA complied with the Switzerland privacy laws by providing a
cookie banner that informs consumers that they are being tracked
and data is being collected with an option to opt out, and a Cookie
Policy and Privacy Policy available on the Websites that outline
how data is collected, stored, and processed.
Judge Corley notes that Losson decided to digitally subscribe to
websites owned by the governing body of European football, itself a
European entity. The websites provide "United European Football
League game updates, news, interviews, and commentary." Judge
Corley points out that there is nothing unreasonable about
requiring Losson to litigate his claims in Europe in these
circumstances.
The Court concludes that Losson's claims are connected with the
Terms & Conditions he expressly agreed to when he subscribed to
UEFA's websites. So, the forum-selection clause in those Terms &
Conditions requiring the dispute be litigated in Switzerland
applies and Losson has not shown it is unenforceable. UEFA's motion
to dismiss for forum non conveniens is, therefore, granted. This
Order disposes of Docket No. 20.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycy95hby from PacerMonitor.com.
WALMART INC: Agrees to Settle Wage Class Action Suit for $2.5-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Hall, writing for Sourcing Journal, reports that Walmart has
agreed to pay a $2.5 million settlement to end an Arizona
class-action lawsuit centered around its COVID-19 policies for
employees.
The retail giant was accused of violating Arizona wage laws,
Arizona record-keeping regulations and unjust enrichment. According
to the original complaint from lead plaintiffs Kathy Arrison and
Tristan Smith, who both worked for Walmart in 2020, the company
failed to pay employees for time spent completing mandatory
COVID-19 screenings prior to their shifts.
According to Arrison and Smith, Walmart required its employees to
pass a "physical and medical examination to check for symptoms of
COVID-19 each shift."
The complaint said employees would have their temperatures checked,
then be asked questions about their physical health, travel
history, potential exposures and more. Upon finishing the
screening, which Arrison and Smith alleged took, on average, 10 to
15 minutes, employees could enter the store to clock in for their
shifts.
According to the complaint, "Walmart's managers and supervisors
instructed their employees. . . to arrive several minutes prior to
their scheduled shift in order to have enough time to wait in line,
complete the required screening, enter the story and still clock in
at or just before the employees' scheduled shift."
Arrison and Smith further alleged that employees who did not clock
in on time, regardless of the screening requirement, "were
subjected to, and received, discipline under Walmart's attendance
policy."
Given that the screenings occurred on Walmart's property and were
mandated by the company, the employees alleged they "were subject
to the control of Walmart," which prevented employees from using
the time they spent waiting for screenings for personal tasks or
purposes.
That, they said, meant they should have been compensated for the
time they spent waiting in line and subsequently completing the
screenings. Arrison and Smith did concede that in November 2020,
several months after the screenings began, Walmart started tacking
five minutes on to each employee's daily timecard to account for
time spent in screenings.
However, they argued that, due to the actual amount of time spent
in screenings, "this five-minute addition is insufficient to fully
compensate the affected Walmart employees for the time actually
spent in the COVID-19 screenings."
They went on to note that, allegedly, Walmart failed to reimburse
employees for any screenings that occurred prior to November 2020.
After some legal back and forth, the two parties settled the case.
The settlement terms received final approval from a judge on July
15.
According to the final paperwork, the settlement will cover
approximately 81,000 employees who worked in Walmarts across
Arizona.
In the settlement approval, the judge said, "This [settlement]
amount reflects ‘an average recovery of approximately 50 percent
of each plaintiff's potential post-summary judgment claim.' The
settlement fund will be distributed to class members based on the
number of weeks they worked during the class period. Moreover, no
funds will revert to [Walmart]. Instead, any remaining funds will
be redistributed to class members."
Walmart did not immediately respond to Sourcing Journal's request
for comment on the settlement.
Over the course of the past several months, Walmart has faced
several instances of scrutiny over its labor practices. It was
named to the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health
(National COSH)'s "Dirty Dozen" list earlier this year. The
organization highlighted what it considers unsafe working practices
and lack of care for employees' wellbeing going on inside Walmart.
Activist group Oxfam also called out Walmart, and its competitor
Amazon, earlier this year for "excessive" workplace surveillance
that it alleged negatively impacted workers' rights.
Employees, too, have started to call for change. One employee
submitted a shareholders' proposal this year, asking the company to
conduct a third-party review of its workplace safety practices,
including its policies on gun violence. Ultimately, the proposal
did not receive a majority of shareholders' votes; Walmart had
advised shareholders to vote against it. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Racial Disparity Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro, writing for Courthouse News Services, reports that
a federal judge ruled early Monday, July 29, that class action
claims accusing some Wells Fargo employees of conducting fake job
interviews to get around the company's diversity guidelines could
proceed.
The class plaintiffs are former investors of Wells Fargo, who filed
suit in 2022 after the New York Times published articles in May and
June 2022 detailing Wells Fargo's practice of conducting interviews
with diverse candidates for positions that had already been filled
or for positions the company knew the candidate was not qualified
for.
After the New York Times' articles were published, Wells Fargo's
common stock price plummeted, causing the plaintiff investors to
suffer significant losses and damages, they claim.
In her 21-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson, a Joe
Biden appointee, wrote that new evidence -- including declarations
from multiple former employees across the country working in
different divisions who acknowledged the fake interviews -- was
enough to prove for the misrepresentation claims to survive at this
point.
"Defendants misleadingly stated that they implemented a policy
requiring a slate of 50% diverse candidates to improve diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true,
defendants implemented these policies in a manner that did not
align with this goal," Thompson wrote.
Wells Fargo had argued in a August 2023 hearing that its public
statements committing to increased workforce diversity were not
misleading because the company solely promised that 50% of
interview candidates would be diverse, without addressing whether
those diverse candidates would be hired. Thus, whether the
interviews were conducted with the intent to hire the candidates is
not relevant.
"Defendants' arguments ignore the surrounding language in the
accused statements, and the greater context in which the statements
were made," Thompson wrote.
Thompson noted that Wells Fargo framed the diverse search
requirement as a method for improving the pipeline of candidates by
interviewing more diverse candidates, but that the new evidence
showed the company knew these candidates never had a chance of
being hired.
"Defendants misleadingly stated that they implemented a policy
requiring a slate of 50% diverse candidates to improve diversity,
equity and inclusion. Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true,
defendants implemented these policies in a manner that did not
align with this goal," Thompson wrote.
Thompson wrote that Wells Fargo implemented the diversity policy in
the context of lawsuits and pressure from investors, the government
and the general public to do more to increase diversity at the
company, so any reasonable investor would expect the policy to
address the underlying issue, not make it worse.
The plaintiffs initially argued that Wells Fargo execs knew about
the practice of fake interviews because employees complained about
them to upper management -- making statements from reports and
notices filed with the Securities Exchange Commission and press
releases, which emphasized the company's commitment to improving
workforce diversity, materially false.
However, the complaint was dismissed in August 2023 for failure to
plead both falsity and knowledge of wrongdoing.
The plaintiffs amended their complaint, conducting an independent
investigation interviewing nine former Wells Fargo employees, in
addition to introducing four new documents that they said showed
fake interviews were "systemic" at the company.
Wells Fargo's 2020 diversity guidelines required that at least 50%
of candidates interviewed for positions that have salaries of more
than $100,000 a year come from an underrepresented racial, ethnic
or gender group or were veterans, people with disabilities or
members of the LGBTQ community.
In an emailed statement, Wells Fargo said it is "deeply dedicated
to diversity, equity and inclusion and does not tolerate
discrimination in any part of our business. The claims in this
lawsuit have no merit, and we will continue to defend ourselves
against them." The company also noted both the Justice Department
and the Securities and Exchange Commission closed investigations
into its hiring practices without taking any action.
Counsel for the class plaintiffs did not respond to requests for
comment before publication. [GN]
WEST VIRGINIA: Sheppheard Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SHEPPHEARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Thomas Sheppheard, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. James Justice, Jr., his official capacity as
Governor of the State of West Virginia, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 5:23-cv-00530, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of all currently incarcerated persons
housed in West Virginia state prisons, jails and juvenile centers,
allege that the Defendants have failed to alleviate pervasive
conditions of overcrowding, understaffing, and deferred maintenance
at all such facilities for over a decade. As a result, they allege
that West Virginia inmates have suffered inhumane conditions of
confinement and deliberate indifference to their health and safety
in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
On Oct. 31, 2023, Defendant Mark Sorsaia filed a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' complaint.
On Nov. 6, 2023, Defendant James C. Justice, Jr. also filed a
motion to dismiss with prejudice.
On July 2, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Irene C. Berger.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this
action against the named Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned Thomas Sheppheard v. James Justice,
Jr., Case No. 24-6691, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 18, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants THOMAS SHEPPHEARD, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert Patterson Dunlap, II, Esq.
ROBERT DUNLAP ESQUIRE
345 Prince Street
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 255-4762
- and –
Timothy Paul Lupardus, Esq.
P.O. Box 1680
Pineville, WV 24874
Telephone: (304) 732-0250
- and –
Stephen Paul New, Esq.
Emilee Brooke Wooldridge, Esq.
STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES
430 Harper Park Drive
P.O. Box 5516
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 250-6017
- and –
Amanda J. Taylor, Esq.
TAYLOR, HINKLE & TAYLOR
115 1/2 South Kanawha Street
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 894-8733
- and –
Zachary Kyle Whitten, Esq.
WHITTEN LAW OFFICE
P.O. Box 753
Pineville, WV 24874
Telephone: (304) 202-0511
Defendants-Appellees JAMES C. JUSTICE, JR., in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of West Virginia, et al. are
represented by:
Maureen F. Gleason, Esq.
Michael Brian Hissam, Esq.
Jonathan Zak Ritchie, Esq.
HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
P.O. Box 3983
Charleston, WV 25339
- and –
Kimberly M. Bandy, Esq.
Caleb David, Esq.
Tyler Rittenhouse, Esq.
Shannon Marlowe Rogers, Esq.
Natalie C. Schaefer, Esq.
SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC
P.O. Box 3953
Charleston, WV 25339
Telephone: (304) 345-1400
[*] Gaza Backers Prepare Class Action Suit Against Rep. Thompson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Stark of Enterprise reports that Pro-Palestinian protesters
will announce a campaign to launch a class action lawsuit against
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, at his annual Napa Summer Dinner
for what they call "his illegal use of our tax dollars to fund such
a genocide."
Tickets range in price from $50 (individual) to $3,300 for the "Max
Out for Mike" option.
The protest and announcement of the class action suit (and others)
were to mark the reported deaths 39,000 Palestinians (mostly
civilians), as they have called out Thompson for supporting and
voting for bills in favor of sending more military aid and weapons
to the Israeli government, including $4.4 billion to the Israeli
military.
In a phone interview in January with the Enterprise, Thompson said
supplemental funding needed to be insisted upon so that the
Netanyahu government could conduct its war against Hamas. "That
they conduct in an appropriate way, that they minimize fallout for
civilians, and they focus their efforts on the terrorists," he said
then.
While the class action lawsuit papers haven't yet been filed,
organizers have consulted progressive attorneys, and the class
includes Thompson's constituents who objected to federal tax
dollars "to fund the genocide," organizer Seth Donnelly said on
Tuesday, July 30.
"Right now, we want to create the class, so the more people, the
better. There are people throughout the counties represented by
Thompson that are very, very upset, and the basis of the lawsuit is
that he voted to use our tax laws, a clear violation of U.S. law,"
Donnelly said, noting that those who want to be a part of the
lawsuit, can email Alyn Wolves (info@sonomacountyforpalestine.com),
the organizer who sent out a press release announcing the protest.
He said the lawsuit will be on the basis that Thompson violated
international law, the United Nations Genocide Convention -- in
which genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public
incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, and
complicity in genocide are punishable -- also domestic law under
the Leahy Amendment, according to the Department of State, which
"refers to two statutory provisions prohibiting the U.S. Government
from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces
where there is credible information implicating that unit in the
commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR). One
statutory provision applies to the State Department, and the other
applies to the Department of Defense."
Since the House of Representatives controls the constituents' tax
dollars, as Donnelly, a retired high school civics teacher from the
South Bay who now lives in Thompson's district, has told his
students: "‘They have the power of the purse.' We think it's
reasonable grounds for a lawsuit to target him as, as our
representative, who keeps voting to use our dollars for those
purposes."
As the Associated Press (and elsewhere) reported, the United
Nations' top court said that "Israel's presence in the occupied
Palestinian territories is unlawful and called on it to end, and
for settlement construction to stop immediately, issuing an
unprecedented, sweeping condemnation of Israel's rule over the
lands it captured 57 years ago.
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly denounced the
nonbinding opinion issued by the 15-judge panel of the
International Court of Justice, saying the territories are part of
the Jewish people's historic homeland. Butthe resounding breadth of
the decision could impact international opinion and fuel moves for
unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.
"The judges pointed to a wide list of policies, including the
building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and
east Jerusalem, use of the area's natural resources, the annexation
and imposition of permanent control over lands and discriminatory
policies against Palestinians, all of which it said violated
international law."
In a statement to The Enterprise, Thompson said he did not attend
Netanyahu's last address to Congress in 2015 and did not attend the
Prime Minister's address last week, stating his attendance "would
not be a good use" of his time. "Instead of sitting through a
politically divisive lecture from Prime Minister Netanyahu, I chose
to spend my time meeting with families of Israeli hostages to
advocate for bringing their loved ones home," he said in a
statement.
Hostages from the Oct. 7 terrorist attack have been in Hamas
captivity for about 300 days. "I met with families of three of the
over 115 hostages this week," Thompson said. "These families are as
distressed as you or I would be if one of our loved ones were held
captive. We can't allow the days to continue to tick by. We must
secure the hostages' release and find a peaceful path forward to
establish a two-state solution."
After 39 weeks of Tuesday, July 30, protests outside Thompson's
Woodland office calling for a ceasefire and divestment from Israel,
the July 16 demonstration took to the streets of downtown as about
50 people marched to the Woodland City Council chambers to urge a
resolution.
"We don't want our taxes funding war crimes!" they demanded in
their messaging.
Elise, a Palestinian-American resident, urged the council to pass a
ceasefire resolution and informed the council that their community
is directly impacted.
"The genocide in Palestine is not some faraway issue that is
unrelated. Our tax dollars directly fund it," she said. "Twent-five
dollars of each taxpaying adult goes directly to Israel to fund the
bombs that killed my family and my friends … our tax money,
billions of dollars, is sent to Israel every year to support a
settler colonial regime that is built on ethnic cleansing,
apartheid and terrorism of the indigenous peoples."
She further stated, "voting yes on a ceasefire resolution just
shows that we are with humanity, we stand against genocide" and
"this is a human rights issue, an issue of conscience. Palestinians
are humans who deserve to live in peace."
Leanne, a congregation member of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in
Woodland, advocated for the city to pass a ceasefire resolution
related to the devastation in Gaza. She referenced a letter in the
Lancet that claims that the final figure could eventually be about
186,000. Written by scientists who model how war affects health, as
The Guardian explains, the letter "lays out the importance of an
accurate count – and the difficulty of achieving one."
Woodland Mayor Tania Garcia-Cadena stated that although cities
around the country have passed resolutions declaring support of a
ceasefire in Gaza, she read a statement from the council stating
the passage of a "resolution concerning matters (are) well outside
the city's jurisdiction."
To the protesters, her statement that "the city of Woodland does
not allocate federal funding" missed the point that the resolution
did not ask the city to allocate funds but merely to send a message
to the federal government about how it is allocating all of our tax
dollars. She encouraged residents to "continue to reach out to our
Congressman, Mr. Michael Thompson."
Organizers of July 28 protest in Napa said this is the first in
which they've targeted Thompson specifically, said Alyn Wolves, a
Sonoma County resident and "anti-Zionist Jew." "We had looked into
doing things (like the Woodland protests), but it seems that he is
never actually at his Sonoma County office," he said, "and he does
not usually send staffers to keep that office open."
Wolves said the protest won't block attendees' access or anything
that's going to put anyone at risk of arrest. "I'm a firm believer
in building up the infrastructure beforehand with legal
representation. I don't want to needlessly put anyone at risk
without having a lot more planning for that kind of thing put into
it."
He said after the press release went out earlier in the day, he
received a phone call from Thompson's office thanking him for his
stance on HR 883 (which expresses slogans like "from the river to
the sea, Palestine will be free" is antisemitic and its use must be
condemned). Thompson and 94 other democrats signed the GOP bill.
"That was months ago, and I'm not sure I even gave them my phone
number, so I think that they are very likely calling me just
because they saw the press release" about the fundraiser, Wolves
said.
"His votes on key issues that both fund the IDF (Israel Defense
Forces) more money that could be better spent, either here on a
variety of things or in actually giving aid to Palestine and his
votes on bills directly equating anti-Zionism with anti-Judaism –
and I'm an anti-Zionist Jew –so that very much offends me." That
said, Wolves said it's "good" Thompson didn't go to Netanyahu's
talk in front of Congress, but added, "there's worse things that
he's doing."
Organizations involved in the upcoming protest at the winery
include Sonoma County for Palestine, Love and Light, Sonoma State
University Students for Justice in Palestine, Sonoma Valley for
Ceasefire, the Palestinian Youth Movement, Centro del Poder
Popular, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Yolo for
Palestinian Justice.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) joined Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.),
Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) announced
"legislation directing universities and the Education Department to
immediately address civil rights complaints if a student
experiences violence or harassment on campus because of their
heritage. The Restoring Civility on Campus Act builds on Grassley's
work to support Israel after Hamas' October 7 attack and stem
antisemitism at U.S. higher-ed institutions."
Also, last week, the US Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights notified complainants of its decision to investigate UC
Davis over incidents of harassment and discrimination against
students on the basis of their actual or perceived national origin,
including shared Palestinian or Arab ancestry, Muslim faith, and
association with Palestinian students. The complaint was filed on
April 12.
According to the Sacramento Bee, "the first Office for Civil Rights
letter to UC Davis Chancellor Gary S. May dated June 11 follows a
complaint of alleged discrimination against students on the basis
of their Jewish ancestry or Israeli national origin." [GN]
[*] Hadi Law Prepares Class Lawsuit Against Democrat Taral Patel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covering Katy News reports that the Hadi Law Firm of Houston is
preparing a class action lawsuit against candidate Taral Patel, a
Democrat running for Fort Bend County Precinct 3 Commissioner.
Patel, a Democrat, is accused of stealing the identity of a
Needville family, impersonating Democrat District Court Judge
Surendran Pattel, and creating fake racist posts designed to make
it appear that they came from supporters of his Republican
opponent, Precinct 3 Commissioner Andy Meyers. Patel frequently
used the identity Antonio Scalywag but he's also suspected of using
other fake names to conceal his actions.
One of the posts from the Scalywag Facebook account says, "I am
against false gods and their worshippers winning office in
Christian nation. I am wirh Meyers ALL THE WAY because he serves
Jesus until Patel and his followers who worship Monkey and Elephant
-- Antonio Scalywag"
"I was thrilled to learn that the Hadi Law Firm has courageously
stepped forward to seek justice for Patel's victims, including
those who have supported his campaign and now suffer guilt by
association," said Fort Bend County Republican Party Chairman Bobby
Eberle. "If the charges against Patel are true, Patel has not only
endangered the democratic process but he's also harmed the justice
system by scheming to destroy Judge Pattel, who is also a
Democrat."
The Hadi Law Firm is circulating this message to encourage people
who feel they have been victimized by Taral Patel to come forward
and join a law suit to recover damages.
"If you've been affected by the actions of 'Antonio Scalywag,' also
known as Taral Vipul Patel, you're not alone," the Hadi Law Firm
posted in a message to victims. Read the entire message HERE.
"Considering the accusations and the compelling proof outlined in
the search warrants, his actions have not only harmed individuals
but also tainted the integrity of the political landscape."
Individuals affected by Patel's actions are encouraged to come
forward and contact the Hadi Law Firm at 832-433-7977 to ensure
that anyone harmed by Patel's actions is paid monetary damages for
the harm they've suffered. [GN]
[*] Real Estate Commissions Shift Amid Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Pinnacle Gazette reports that the landscape of real estate
commissions in the United States is undergoing a seismic shift as
the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reaches a landmark
settlement that is poised to revolutionize agent fees, pricing
strategies, and the overall market dynamics for buyers and sellers.
This comprehensive plan emerges in the wake of various lawsuits
asserting that home sellers, particularly, have been subject to
artificially inflated commissions, which some estimates place at
approximately $418 million. The implications of these changes are
profound, affecting not just agents but also homebuyers and sellers
across the nation.
To contextualize this significant event, let's delve into the
current structure of commissions and the precedent that has been
set. Historically, real estate transactions in the U.S. have
typically entailed a commission rate of 5% to 6%, which is often
shared between a seller's agent and a buyer's agent. The
conventional wisdom suggested that these commissions were necessary
for facilitating transactions, providing essential services, and
justifying the work done by agents. However, the new NAR settlement
challenges this norm and introduces major adjustments.
Under the new rules set to be implemented mid-July, there are two
groundbreaking changes. First, listing agents will no longer be
permitted to advertise automatic compensation for buyer agents
through the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). This means that buyers
may have to pay their agents directly for their services,
potentially upending the traditional model in which sellers
typically absorbed these costs. This arrangement was birthed from a
desire to eliminate what some claim were perverse incentives for
agents.
The second pivotal change requires all agents representing
homebuyers to enter into formal Buyer Representation Agreements, a
document that outlines the scope and cost of services to be
provided. This shift aims to foster transparency within the
buyer-agent relationship, which had previously been overshadowed by
polarized interests and misunderstandings about commission
payments.
While these developments aim to promote fairness and enhance the
competitive landscape of real estate transactions, they also raise
concerns. How will they influence the actual costs incurred by
buyers and sellers? The reality is that many buyers are already
facing financial challenges, and shifting the burden of paying an
agent's fee onto them might exacerbate the situation.
Critics of the settlement argue that this new model may not
necessarily lead to lower overall transaction costs. In fact, home
prices could remain stable despite the change in commission
structures, primarily because commissions have been baked into
overall marketing psychology for years. The sentiment among real
estate professionals is mixed; some embrace the chance to reinvent
their businesses, while others worry about their livelihoods amid
uncertainty.
As we explore the potential repercussions in-depth, it becomes
evident that some buyers may have to take a proactive role in
negotiating their representation fees, something that will require
savvy knowledge of the market and negotiations. Greg Kling, an
associate professor at the University of Southern California
Marshall School of Business, stated, "I just think it's too soon to
tell. We're going to either see prices are going up for buyers, or
the market is going to correct itself."
The anticipated impact of these shifts can be examined from
multiple viewpoints. For sellers, this settlement could translate
into tangible financial benefits, as they may avoid paying for
buyer-agent commissions altogether. For instance, a seller agreeing
to pay a 3% commission for their listing may save around $11,373 by
not covering an additional buyer-agent fee, particularly if median
home prices remain predictably high.
However, the complications are far from resolved, and sellers may
still feel compelled to cover some form of incentive to buyer
agents to attract offers, especially in contexts where competition
remains fierce. As indicated by analysts with Keefe, Bruyette &
Woods, "so long as steering incentives still exist, home sellers
may be compelled to offer supracompetitive commissions to buyer
agents to avoid steering."
Another dimension to this extensive overhaul in the real estate
industry is the role of part-time agents and small brokerages. With
increased pressures on commission structures and a potential
downscaling of agent operations, the market may see a transition
toward discount models and alternative business practices. This
could usher in practices where discount brokers list homes for a
flat fee, removing the conventional reliance on high commission
structures.
Yet, the potential downsides for buyers are concerning. With buyers
no longer automatically compensated for their agent's fees, many
may forego using an agent entirely, opting instead to navigate the
complexities of purchasing a home independently. Real estate
transactions require extensive knowledge and support, so
eliminating a guiding figure could lead to undesirable outcomes,
particularly for first-time homebuyers who already face numerous
barriers.
The reaction from within the industry highlights the uncertainties
and anxieties prevalent as agents seek to adapt to the new
landscape. In a sentiment echoed across brokerages, agents are
realizing that their relationships with clients will require a
deeper level of transparency and negotiation going forward. "I
think they're focusing on the wrong solution," one agent said,
voicing concerns over looming changes to the integrity of the
profession.
As the NAR initiates these significant rule changes, the broader
real estate environment grapples with how to best serve clients
amid evolving expectations and pressures. Buyers will likely need
to engage more actively in the search for suitable properties and
be more knowledgeable negotiators when it comes to commissions and
representation agreements.
As we stand on the cusp of this new era in real estate, consumers
must remain vigilant and informed. While potential savings could
exist for sellers, the transitional phase is certain to be rife
with confusion as buyers, agents, and sellers work to comprehend
and adapt to the implications of these changes. Moreover, it's
essential for prospective homeowners to account for potential
additional costs in their purchasing budgets and maintain an open
dialogue with real estate professionals who can help navigate this
murky territory.
In light of these industry shifts, one thing is clear: as the
commission model undergoes transformation, a comprehensive
understanding of the new landscape will be crucial for achieving
fair and equitable transactions. The future of real estate
commissions may retain the imperative of negotiation, but it also
promises some fresh opportunities for those willing to embrace
change and adapt their strategies in an increasingly complex
market. [GN]
[*] Securities Class Action Filing Increased in First Half of 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Research reports that the number of securities class
action filings increased in the first half of 2024 relative to the
second half of 2023, according to a report released today by
Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse.
The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2024 Midyear
Assessment, found that plaintiffs filed 112 securities class
actions in federal and state courts in the first half of 2024, an
increase from the 103 class actions filed in the second half of
2023. The number of core filings -- those without merger and
acquisition (M&A) allegations -- in 2024 H1 (110) was above the
number of core filings in 2023 H2 (101) and the historical
semiannual average (96). Tracking of the Artificial Intelligence
(AI) trend category began; there were six such filings in the first
half of 2024. The number of filings in all other trend categories
-- including Cryptocurrency -- is on pace to decline in 2024,
except for COVID-19-related filings, which are on pace to
increase.
"While we've seen AI-related filings in recent years, the first
half of 2024 marks the beginning of tracking these filings as a
trend category. The growing prominence of AI in the business models
of many companies may lead to more filings in the future," said
Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, the report's coauthor and a Cornerstone
Research senior vice president. "Meanwhile, SPAC-related filings
are on pace to decline steeply relative to recent years, and
cryptocurrency-related filings, which have been hot for the past
several years, experienced a sharp decline."
The number of filings with federal Section 11 and state claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 remained low in the first half of
2024. The annualized number of these filings, 22, is in line with
the number of filings, 21, in 2023. There were two federal M&A
filings, on pace to be the lowest annual total since tracking of
federal M&A filings began in 2009.
The Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) Index decreased 9% to $908 billion in
the first half of 2024, a continuing decline from the
inflation-adjusted record high set in the first half of 2023 but
remaining 51% above the historical semiannual average. The
Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index increased to $185 billion in
2024 H1, a 9% increase from 2023 H2 and the sixth consecutive
semiannual period with DDL at or above the historical semiannual
average of $119 billion.
"The potential for real liability resulting from artificial
intelligence is among the more interesting developments of the past
six months," according to former SEC Commissioner Joseph Grundfest,
now professor emeritus at Stanford Law School. "But more
immediately, keep an eye on the upcoming Supreme Court term.
Important decisions will issue in the NVIDIA litigation regarding
pleading requirements for securities fraud claims, and in the
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica litigation involving risk factor
disclosure."
Additional Key Trends
-- The likelihood of a core filing against a U.S. exchange-listed
company is on pace to increase to an annualized rate of 3.9%,
surpassing the 2010–2023 average of 3.6% for core filings.
-- In the first half of 2024, there were 10 mega DDL filings
(those with a DDL of at least $5 billion), twice the 1997–2023
semiannual average (five) and slightly above the number of mega DDL
filings in 2023 H2 (eight).
-- The number of core federal filings in the Second and Ninth
Circuits increased and comprised 60% of the total number of core
federal filings in 2024 H1. DDL in the Ninth Circuit more than
tripled relative to 2023 H2, while DDL in the Second Circuit
decreased by 84%.
-- Core federal filings against non-U.S. issuers as a percentage
of total core federal filings in 2024 H1 declined by nearly a
quarter relative to 2023, reaching a 15-year low.
About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse
The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis on the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 6,600
securities class action lawsuits filed since the passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Defends 4,106 Individual Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of June 30, 2024, is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that
purport to represent approximately 4,106 individual claimants,
compared to approximately 4,060 individual claimants with actions
pending March 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cgmgs7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 293 Individual Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain of its talcum powder products were
contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other
cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Colgate-Palmolive states, "As of June 30, 2024, there were 293
individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal
courts throughout the United States, as compared to 285 cases as of
March 31, 2024 and 279 cases as of December 31, 2023. During the
three months ended June 30, 2024, 40 new cases were filed and 32
cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or settlement. During
the six months ended June 30, 2024, 66 new cases were filed and 52
cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal
by the court. The value of the settlements in the periods presented
was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such
periods' results of operations. During the three months ended March
31, 2024, one case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the
Company after a trial. During the three months ended June 30, 2024,
the court entered a judgment granting plaintiffs’ motion for a
new trial in that case. The Company is challenging that ruling."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ngfrlp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Union Carbide is and has been
involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts during the past four decades, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos‑containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the
past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on
Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary,
Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss
as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact
resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ILzjYW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $112MM Claims Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in
various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state
and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies it previously acquired, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
International Paper states, "The Company's total recorded liability
with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $112
million and $97 million as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023,
respectively, both net of estimated insurance recoveries. While it
is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess
of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters,
we are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of
such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are
probable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cWOLQR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Reports 522 PI Claims Outstanding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation has 522 claims outstanding as of June 30, 2024,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
In virtually all of the cases against us, the plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages above a jurisdictional minimum against
multiple defendants who may have manufactured, sold or used
asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiffs were allegedly
exposed and from which they purportedly suffered injury. Most of
these cases are being litigated in Maryland, Illinois, Missouri and
New York; however, we are also defending cases in other states. We
continue to vigorously defend these cases, primarily on the basis
of the plaintiffs' inability to establish compensable loss as a
result of exposure to our products. The indemnity and defense costs
of our asbestos-related product liability litigation to date have
been substantially covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nsbZ3U
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.24BB Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., has reported net asbestos paid loss
and loss expenses in the first six months of 2024 and 2023 of $135
million and $89 million, respectively, and net asbestos reserves of
$1.24 billion and $1.22 billion at June 30, 2024 and 2023,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Travelers Companies states, "In the ordinary course of its
insurance business, the Company has received and continues to
receive claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the
Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos- and
environmental-related exposures that are the subject of related
coverage litigation. The Company is defending asbestos- and
environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it
has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes
are uncertain. In this regard, the Company employs dedicated
specialists and comprehensive resolution strategies to manage
asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling
litigation under appropriate circumstances. Currently, it is not
possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on future loss
development for claims and litigation relating to asbestos and
environmental claims. Any such development could be affected by
future court decisions and interpretations, as well as future
changes, if any, in applicable legislation. Because of these
uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in
excess of the Company's current insurance reserves. In addition,
the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment
expenses may change. These additional liabilities or changes in
estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated
and could result in income statement charges that could be material
to the Company's results of operations in future periods."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yK0e0H
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $824MM Total Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has total asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims and defense and processing costs of $824
million at June 30, 2024 ($867 million at December 31, 2023),
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "At June 30, 2024, approximately 25 percent of
the recorded claim liability related to pending claims and
approximately 75 percent related to future claims.
"Each quarter, the Corporation reviews asbestos-related claims
filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and
resolution costs by disease category. The Corporation also
considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation
and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and
processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative
developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective
effects on expected future resolution costs. UCC management
considers these factors in conjunction with the most recent
actuarial study and determines whether a change in the estimate is
warranted. Based on the Corporation's review of 2024 activity, it
was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at
June 30, 2024."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ElwVee
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions
across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of the claims are submitted
to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure
that all of these claims will be fully covered by insurance, or
that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable.
Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be
estimated. A limited number of claims are not covered by insurance,
nor are they subject to indemnity from non-affiliated parties.
Management believes that the costs of the Company's
asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's
overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IByjMy
*********
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 ***