/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241030.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 30, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 218 Headlines ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Rosen Law Expands Class Period to October 18 ALAMEDA, CA: Court Enters Judgment on Gonzalez's Claims v. Wellpath ALFA VITAMINS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says AMAZON WEB: Court Dismisses BIPA Claim in McGoveran Class Suit AMERICAN WATER: Faces Wilkins Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info ANTHONY WILLS: Three Claims Can Proceed in French, et al. Suit APOTEX CORP: Generic Pharma MDL Settlement Wins Final Approval APPLE INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Orshan Suit to 9th Circuit BHP GROUP: Faces $47-Bil. Class Action Over Brazil Dam Collapse BLACK GIRL: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says CALIFORNIA: Court Refuses to Transfer Bazzo Suit to N.D. California CASCADIA: Plaintiff's Bid for Court-Authorized Notice Granted COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bregante Alleges COOPERGENOMICS INC: Former IVF Patients Sue Over Efficacy of PGT-A DARREN INDYKE: Seeks Leave to Redact Portions of Exhibits EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Bid For Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Dec. 13 ELANCO ANIMAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 6 ELON MUSK: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pampena Suit to 9th Cir. ELYRIA FOUNDRY: Wolcott Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ENCORE SERIES: Callahan Sues Over Refund of Concert Tickets FEDERAL BUREAU: Bacote's Appeal Dismissed as Prudentially Moot FURTHERED INC: Court Consolidates Class Actions GARCIA TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avalos Suit Says GATOS SILVER: Settlement in Bilinksy Suit Gets Final Court Nod HAPPY GROUP: Files 9th Circuit Appeal in Rusoff Class Suit HASKEL INTERNATIONAL: Sanford Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action IC SYSTEM: Seeks to Extend Time to File Class Cert Opposition JUST MIKE'S: Case Management Order Entered in Sekala Lawsuit JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Users Receive Payments of Class Settlement KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Loses Bid to Toss Roberson's Expert Opinion KELLEY A. JOSEPH P.A.: Chaves Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Door Sensors KOHL'S INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Murphy Suit Alleges LABORATORY CORP: McDonald Wins Class Certification Bid LAKESIDE WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: Appeals Remand Order in Doe Class Suit LEHIGH VALLEY: Ex-Employees Sue Over Violation of ERISA LINCARE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Garate Suit LINKSQUARES INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Caicedo Alleges LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cuevas Due Feb. 14, 2025 LLR INC: Scheduling & Planning Report Deadline Extended MARK CUBAN: Seeks Oct. 31 Date for Class Supplemental Opposition MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Remand Order in Arnold Suit MATTEL INC: Bigelow Sues Over Unsafe Snuga Infant Swing Products MDL 2873: 2 Suits Consolidated in AFFF Product Liability Row MDL 2873: Transfer of "Deese" and "Hardwick II" to D.S.C. Denied META PLATFORMS: Menora Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Must File Class Cert Notice MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Wallenstein NAT'L BASKETBALL: 2nd Circuit Vacates Judgment in Salazar Suit NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Troyan Appeals $600M Train Derailment Settlement OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Loses Bid for Class Certification PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines PARTS AUTHORITY: Casey Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid PERRIGO CO: Denied Bid to Alter Judgment in "Roofer's" Appealed PILLOW CUBE: Hogan Class Certification Bid Granted in Part PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Dean-Chrivia's Bid to Toss Stafford Suit Granted PRIMMER & PIPER: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Gaboriault Tossed PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Class Reply Extended to Nov. 8 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Johnson Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Circuit RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Suit Seeks Class Certification READING INTERNATIONAL: Valentini Seeks to Certify Class Action SELENE FINANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Dominguez Suit SHOPBOBBY'S.COM: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Agostini Says SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Has Until Dec. 9 to Respond in Enriquez Suit SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: May File Response in Coit Suit by Dec. 9 SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: May File Response in Reese Suit by Dec. 9 SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Response in Canady Suit Extended to Dec. 9 SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Response in Jacobs Suit Extended to Dec. 9 SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Response in McLean Suit Extended to Dec. 9 STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class STARCO BRANDS: Ryan Seeks Class Cert Deadlines Extension STATE FARM: Pitkin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SUN ENERGY: Plaintiff's Conditional Certification Bid Granted TAKARA SAKE: Tunick Seeks to Consider Sealing of Defendant's Docs TECOMET INC: Bid for Conditional Status of Action Due Feb. 21, 2025 TEMPUR SEALY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 25, 2025 THINK JERKY: Miller Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Seeks Class Certification TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal UNITED FURNITURE: Fails to Satisfy WARN ACT Requirements UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson "Phone Call" Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson Seeks to Seal Class Certification Bid UNIVERSAL STAINLESS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Aperam VI-JON LLC: Parties Must File Joint Statement by Nov. 14 VSS-SOUTHERN THEATERS: Hoge Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir. WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement Gets Court OK WALMART INC: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Bid WEBCOLLEX LLC: Court Tosses Gutierrez's Class Certification Bid WESTECH SECURITY: Carrasquillo Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. WESTERN CONFERENCE: Paieri's Bid for Leave to Amend Action Granted WM TECHNOLOGY: Investors Sue Over Misleading and False Statements ********* ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Rosen Law Expands Class Period to October 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACHC) between February 28, 2020 and October 18, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Class Period was expanded to include more investors. A class action has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 16, 2024in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. So what: If you purchased Acadia Healthcare securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. What to do next: To join the Acadia Healthcare class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28482 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 16, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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. 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. Details of the Case:According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Acadia Healthcare's business model centered on holding vulnerable people against their will in its facilities, including in cases where it was not medically necessary to do so; (2) while in Acadia Healthcare facilities, many patients were subjected to abuse; (3) Acadia Healthcare deceived insurance providers into paying for patients to stay in its facilities when it was not medically necessary; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Acadia Healthcare class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28482 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 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] ALAMEDA, CA: Court Enters Judgment on Gonzalez's Claims v. Wellpath ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment as to their claims against Wellpath. The Plaintiffs, current and former detainees at Santa Rita Jail, filed this action bringing conditions of confinement claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs named as Defendants Alameda County, who oversees the Jail; Wellpath, the third-party contractor, who provides medical services at the Jail; and Aramark, the third-party contractor, who provides food services at the Jail. The Court denied class certification of the Plaintiffs' claims against Wellpath and Aramark, and in July 2024, the Court granted Wellpath's motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs settled their claims against the remaining Defendants and a motion for preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs' class action settlement with the County is pending before the Court. The Plaintiffs now move for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to their claims against Wellpath. Because there is no just reason for delay and given Wellpath's non-opposition, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court's summary judgment order as to Wellpath finally resolves all of the Plaintiffs' claims against it. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the claims against Aramark and the only remaining claims are the claims against the County, which are subject to the pending motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement and are wholly independent on the Plaintiffs' claims against Wellpath. The Order is, thus, final in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action, Judge Corley says. Additionally, there is no just reason for delay--Wellpath has not opposed entry of judgment, and the claims against the County and Wellpath are not interrelated and, thus, there is no risk of piecemeal review. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion in the interest of sound judicial administration, and enters judgment in accordance with Rule 54(b) as to the Plaintiffs' claims against Wellpath. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted. This Order disposes of Docket No. 494. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wy4e4ru from PacerMonitor.com. ALFA VITAMINS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALFA VITAMINS LABORATORIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00984 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://alfavitamins.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Alfa Vitamins Laboratories Inc. is a worldwide supplement and vitamin store online supplying high-quality and natural products for everyday nutrition and a healthy lifestyle. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal AMAZON WEB: Court Dismisses BIPA Claim in McGoveran Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CHRISTINE MCGOVERAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01399-SB (D. Del.), Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware grants the Defendant judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiffs' Section 15(d) claim. Judge Bibas says the Plaintiffs regret their choices, but they cannot escape the consequences of their voluntary actions. In March 2023, the Judge dismissed their claim under Section 15(d) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Judge Bibas did not require a motion for leave to amend against Amazon for this claim, and spelled out how the Plaintiffs could state a claim. Yet they instead repleaded the exact same claim that Judge Bibas had dismissed without prejudice. Because they have brought the same claim again with the same defects, Judge Bibas grants Amazon judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiffs' Section 15(d) claim. The Plaintiffs brought a class action, alleging that Amazon had violated several parts of the Act. The complaint said that Amazon violated Section 15(d) of the Act by "disclosing, redisclosing, and disseminating" class members' biometric identifiers and information without their consent. Judge Bibas dismissed that count for failure to state a claim. Judge Bibas opined that the Plaintiffs did not allege that Amazon had shared the class members' biometric identifiers or information. They did allege that Amazon had shared voice audio, but the statute defines "biometric identifier" to include only "voiceprints," not mere voice audio. Because that ruling was the first opinion to evaluate the Plaintiffs' Section 15(d) claim] on the merits, Judge Bibas did not require a motion for leave to amend. The Plaintiffs eventually submitted a long-overdue motion to amend the complaint, adding nine new named plaintiffs. Soon after that, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. But that new complaint realleged the exact same Section 15(d) claim that Judge Bibas had dismissed. As the Plaintiffs concede, the only additions to the new complaint are allegations that nine new plaintiffs reside in Illinois and called an Amazon call center. After filing that new complaint, the Plaintiffs also brought a Section 15(d) claim against Amazon in Illinois state court. Because Judge Bibas had already held that claim was legally flawed, Amazon now asks the Court to enter judgment on it. Judge Bibas points out that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges no additional facts that change the previous Section 15(d) analysis. So the earlier ruling still controls. Thus, Judge Bibas grants judgment on the pleadings to Amazon on the Plaintiffs' Section 15(d) claim. The Plaintiffs resist this conclusion, but their arguments are meritless, Judge Bibas holds. First, they argue that they only "sought leave to add nine new plaintiffs" and never intended to replead the Section 15(d) claim. Second, the Plaintiffs distort the record to argue that their Section 15(d) claim is still dismissed, taking away the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Third, the Plaintiffs dredge up a host of abstention and preclusion doctrines based on the lawsuit they filed in Illinois state court. Judge Bibas says putting claims before the Court has consequences; lying to the Court also has consequences. So, Judge Bibas orders the plaintiffs to show cause about their possible breach of their duty of candor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(3). Judge Bibas gives them an opportunity to explain or challenge the Court's tentative conclusion that they breached their duty of candor by making a frivolous argument. Judge Bibas recaps that his ruling on the motion to dismiss gave the Plaintiffs a detailed blueprint of how to remedy the defects in their claims. The Plaintiffs' lawyers "utterly" ignored that blue print, repleaded the same claim without any substantive changes, and now try to undo their lazy lawyering by invoking a heap of doctrines. None applies, Judge Bibas points out. So, Judge Bibas grants Amazon judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiffs' Section 15(d) claim. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to strike the Section 15(d) claim from the Second Amended Complaint. Judge Bibas refuses. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lets courts strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Striking a pleading "is an extreme and disfavored measure," Judge Bibas explains, citing BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908, 917 (8th Cir. 2007). That is because striking often is sought by the movant simply as a dilatory or harassing tactic. That is what is happening here, Judge Bibas says. The Plaintiffs want to strike the claim only to avoid judgment against them. Because the Plaintiffs try to misuse Rule 12(f) and because the Section 15(d) claim is neither a "defense" nor a "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter," Judge Bibas refuses to strike the claim. The Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to dismiss their Section 15(d) claim voluntarily. So Judge Bibas need not reach that issue. Nor have they asked for leave to replead this claim, so Judge Bibas does not grant it. "Plaintiffs' lawyers ignored the blueprint I gave them to plead a Section 15(d) claim under the Act. They repleaded their original Section 15(d) claim exactly as it was when I ruled it failed to state a claim. That analysis controls. So I grant Amazon judgment on the pleadings," Judge Bibas says. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3z6z9hwv from PacerMonitor.com. Alexander L. Braitberg -- abraitberg@uselaws.com -- Andrew D. Schlichter -- aschlichter@uselaws.com -- Joel Rohlf -- jrohlf@uselaws.com -- Nathan D. Stump -- nstump@uselaws.com -- Peter Cosgrove -- pcosgrove@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP, in St. Louis, Missouri; David T. Crumplar -- davy@jcdelaw.com -- JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Jody C. Barillare -- jody.barillare@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Ari M. Selman -- ari.selman@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, in New York City; Elizabeth Herrington -- beth.herrington@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Jordan McCrary -- jordan.mccrary@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Raechel K. Kummer -- raechel.kummer@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, in Washington, D.C., Counsel for the Defendant. AMERICAN WATER: Faces Wilkins Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09973 (D.N.J., October 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Customer Security Breach Disclosure Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about October 3, 2024. 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. American Water Works Company, Inc. is a water and wastewater utility provider based in Camden, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Email: bmm@chimicles.com mnp@chimicles.com ANTHONY WILLS: Three Claims Can Proceed in French, et al. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois allowed to proceed three claims in the case captioned as MARCELLUS FRENCH, M21081, ALLEN FORD, Y24630, NICHOLAS AYALA, M42926, CHAPPEL CRAIGEN, M25917, Plaintiffs, vs. ANTHONY WILLS, STERRETT, JOHN DOES 1-3, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1462-DWD (S.D. Ill.). This matter is before the Court on the Complaint filed jointly by Marcellus French, Allen Ford, and Chappel Craigen, all inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections who currently reside at Menard Correctional Center. Their lawsuit is about their ability to observe their religion, Al-Islam, from September 2023 through the filing of this lawsuit in July of 2024. They identify two key components of their religious practice that they have been unable to observe -- Friday Jumu'ah services and weekly Taleem (educational) services. They indicate that during the relevant time, they were allowed to attend Jumu'ah just once, and they have not been allowed to attend Taleem at all. They also complain that Taleem is theoretically scheduled at the same time as law library, which would force them to choose between religion or law library if Taleem was not always cancelled. They seek injunctive relief and monetary compensation. On July 16, 2024, the Court entered a Boriboune Order to inform Plaintiffs of the risks and benefits of proceeding together with group litigation. Each Plaintiff was required to advise the Court in writing on or before August 5, 2024, whether he wanted to continue as a plaintiff in this group action. The deadline was then extended to August 27, 2024. Plaintiffs were warned that anyone who simply failed to respond would be dismissed from this action for want of prosecution. Plaintiff French signed the initial complaint, so he did not need to submit an additional document to proceed. Plaintiffs Ford and Craigen both filed timely signed copies of the complaint expressing their desire to proceed. Ford and Craigen shall remain as named Plaintiffs in this action, and they will each be assessed a filing fee. The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints and filter out nonmeritorious claims. The Court is required to dismiss any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from relief. At this juncture, the factual allegations in the pro se Complaint are liberally construed. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court will designate the following claims: Claim 1: First Amendment claim related to the denial of Jumu'ah and/or Taleem services against Defendants Sterrett and Wills in their individual capacities (or against Defendant Wills in his official capacity for any injunctive relief sought); Claim 2: RLUIPA claim related to the denial of Jumu'ah and/or Taleem services against Defendant Wills in his official capacity; and Claim 3: Equal Protection claim related to the denial of Jumu'ah and/or Taleem services for inmates in the East cellhouse against Defendants Sterrett and Wills. At this early juncture, the Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to proceed under the First Amendment against Defendants Wills and Sterrett in their individual capacities for Claim 1. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs explain that both Jumu'ah and Taleem services are central to their ability to observe their religion, and they provide a discussion of the four Turner factors in relation to each service. The allegations are also sufficient to proceed under RLUIPA on Claim 2 because the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. The Court finds that Defendant Anthony Wills is an appropriate party in his official capacity for the RLUIPA claim because, as Warden, he can reasonably be expected to implement injunctive relief related to this case. Finally, Claim 3 alleging an equal protection violation is sufficient to proceed against both Wills and Sterrett in their individual capacities. The Plaintiffs allege that they are treated differently than other inmates in their housing unit with other religions, and that they are treated differently than other inmates that share their religion but live in other housing units. They argue there is no reason for this differential treatment, but that they are treated differently because of their religion. As such, Claim 3 to proceed. Finally, Plaintiff Ford has moved to certify this case as a class action, but the Court does not find it appropriate to allow a pro se litigant or a group of pro se litigants to act as legal representative of a class. The Court finds that although the Plaintiffs have pled a sufficient complaint, it would still be inappropriate to allow them to proceed as legal representatives for others in this action. Thus, Ford's Motion will be denied. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HrUy8f APOTEX CORP: Generic Pharma MDL Settlement Wins Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated case IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2724 (E.D. Pa.), the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will grant the motions of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs César Castillo, LLC, FWK Holdings, LLC, Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc., and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a/ Kinney Drugs, Inc. seeking final approval of settlements with the following three Defendants or groups of Defendants: 1. Apotex Corp.; 2. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.; and 3. Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Satish Mehta Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court held a hearing on September 23, 2024, to determine whether the three proposed class-action settlements are "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The Court must: (1) determine if the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b) are satisfied; (2) assess whether notice to the proposed class was adequate; and (3) evaluate if the proposed settlement is fair under Rule 23(e). In this case there are common issues of law and fact as to all class members: that they made direct purchases of generic pharmaceuticals that were priced higher than they should have been because of an alleged conspiracy among manufacturers, including the settling defendants. Plaintiffs also have demonstrated that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The named Plaintiffs' interests align with those of other class members. The settlement agreement provides that each of the four class representatives will receive a service award of $20,000 (for a total of $80,000). Of that total, $53,333.33 will be withdrawn from the Apotex Settlement Fund, $8,888.89 from the Breckenridge Settlement Fund, and $17,777.78 from the Heritage Settlement Fund. In the context of the settlement awards, the Court finds this a reasonable amount, as the representatives have been actively involved in the prosecution of the case, including through depositions and extensive document production. Class counsel are qualified, experienced, and fully capable of litigating the class members' claims. The representative Plaintiffs, and class counsel, have protected the interests of the class in crafting an adjusted settlement amount that will be allocated on a pro rata basis upon the filing of a motion for distribution, which will provide an opportunity for class members to object to the proposed distribution. In addition, the Settling Defendants have agreed to provide cooperation to DPPs, which will facilitate the administration of the settlements and will aid the litigation against non-settling Defendants. The Court having determined that the settlements are fair and reasonable, and that all applicable requirements have been met, the Court will approve the settlements. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nz5Av2 APPLE INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Orshan Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLE INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Paul Orshan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought this complaint against the Defendant for false and misleading product packaging and promotional materials regarding storage capacity of 8 GB and 16 GB iPhones, iPads and iPods with iOS 8 operating system. On Oct. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Feb. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to exclude testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Andreas Groehn. On Aug. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a first motion for leave to file supplementary material. On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and the Defendant's motion to exclude testimony. The Court certified the California Preinstall Subclass but declined to certify the nationwide Upgrade and Preinstall Subclasses. The Court also agreed with Apple that Dr. Groehn's first damage model (the "Rule-of-Three" Model) does not pass muster. But the Court held that Dr. Groehn's remaining two damage models (the "Incremental Price Regression Model" and the "Hedonic Regression Model") are reliable enough to consider at the class certification stage. Moreover, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplementary material. The appellate case is captioned Paul Orshan, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 24-6253, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2024. [BN] Defendant-Appellant APPLE INC. is represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. Sara N. Pahlavan, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2 Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Email: mpowers@omm.com spahlavan@omm.com - and - Andrew J. Weisberg, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Email: aweisberg@omm.com BHP GROUP: Faces $47-Bil. Class Action Over Brazil Dam Collapse --------------------------------------------------------------- Upmanyu Trivedi and Mariana Durao of Claims Journal report that almost nine years after a devastating dam collapse at a Brazilian iron ore mine, BHP Group Ltd. is set to defend allegations at a London trial that it is "cynically and doggedly" trying to avoid its liability to pay billions in compensation to the communities hit hardest. The collapse of Fundao Dam at an iron ore joint venture between Vale SA and BHP is at the heart of one of the largest UK class actions of its kind starting Monday, October 21. More than 620,000 Brazilians are seeking around GBP36 billion ($46.9 billion) in a case that'll test how far English courts are willing to punish firms over environmental disasters that happened thousands of miles away. The 2015 collapse unleashed a torrent of mine waste that destroyed entire villages, polluted hundreds of kilometers of river and killed 19 people in the Minas Gerais and Espirito Santo states. BHP "has devoted very substantial resources to placing obstacles in the way of the claimants' English claims," lawyers alleged court filings prepared for the trial. Over the 12 week trial at London's High Court lawyers for BHP will argue that the firm can't be held responsible as the Samarco Mineracao venture is an independent entity, BHP didn't know the dam was compromised and it complied with all local rules. BHP made "huge effort" to remediate the effect of the collapse and compensate those affected, the company's lawyers said in filings. The prospect of high profile litigation has added a sense of urgency to settlement talks and BHP Vale are close to finalizing one with Brazilian authorities in a deal estimated to be worth about $30 billion. An accord would impact the size and scope of the UK litigation. An agreement is expected as soon as the end of the month or early November, Itau BBA analysts reported after a meeting with Vale management earlier this month. BHP said that negotiations are still underway. The UK suit duplicates efforts in Brazil as BHP works with authorities to finalize "a fair and comprehensive compensation" process, a BHP spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The claim, "if successful would see up to 30% of any compensation awarded to an individual claimant diverted to the class action lawyers and funders associated with the case." Negotiations in Brazil for an enhanced package of measures "implicitly recognize that a great deal more remains to be done," lawyers for the claimants said in their filing. The case has meandered through the English courts for six years, with different judges taking opposing views about whether the case can go ahead. Ultimately, appeal judges in 2022 paved the way for a full trial. "The time has come for BHP to be confronted in court about its involvement in the Mariana dam collapse," Tom Goodhead, a lawyer at Pogust Goodhead representing the claimants, said ahead of the trial. Pogust Goodhead received GBP450 million from hedge fund Gramercy in a litigation funding deal last year to fight cases including the one against BHP. The class action specialist firm also secured about GBP60 million worth of insurance to help pay for BHP's legal costs if BHP wins, Goodhead said. The case is the world's largest case of its kind with total about 620,000 claimants, 46 Brazilian municipalities, more than 1,500 businesses and faith-based institutions, according to the firm. While the size and scale of the case is remarkable, these cases are hard to win and take years to resolve. Last year Shell Plc won a ruling at the UK Supreme Court over one of the largest oil spills off the coast of Nigeria as the judges rejected arguments that the oil giant could still be held responsible for the 2011 disaster. The BHP trial will also have significant implications as it tests the extent to which multinational companies can be held responsible for such incidents in English courts. A win for the claimants could trigger similar lawsuits, according to Tom Cummins, a London-based lawyer at Ashurst. "There is no shortage of claimant law firms and litigation funders ready to support claims raising environmental and social issues," he said. [GN] BLACK GIRL: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK GIRL VITAMINS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00985 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://blackgirlvitamins.co, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Black Girl Vitamins provides vitamins and food supplement products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CALIFORNIA: Court Refuses to Transfer Bazzo Suit to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned FRANK MONACO BAZZO, Plaintiff v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01454-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He filed the instant action on Sept. 13, 2023, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. His prison trust statement was submitted on Sept. 15, 2023. However, on Oct. 12, 2023, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner. He filed the proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis on Oct. 24, 2023. On Oct. 25, 2023, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because his prison trust account statement reflected sufficient funds to pay for the action at the time it was filed. On Nov. 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The Findings and Recommendations are pending review by the assigned District Judge. On Oct. 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He submits that he "understands that the Hon. District Court Judge E.J. Davila, is allowing the consolidation of PRO SE actions to flow into the class action lawsuit, both for judicial economy and prevention of chaotic duplication." Judge Boone holds that the Plaintiff's request must be denied. Judge Boone explains that the system of multidistrict litigation is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. The law created a panel of Article III judges, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, with the discretion to transfer civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact that are pending in different districts to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. A Section 1407 transfer can only be made by the Panel, and only upon the Panel's determination that that transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. Notwithstanding the lack of information regarding the alleged consolidated action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and given the procedural posture of this case, Judge Boone opines that there is simply no basis to transfer this case to the Northern District, and the Plaintiff's motion must be denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhwjhanh from PacerMonitor.com. CASCADIA: Plaintiff's Bid for Court-Authorized Notice Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as KINDRA GREENE, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASCADIA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-BLW (D. Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted in part the plaintiff's request for court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). This matter arises out of Greene's alleged employment with Defendant Cascadia Healthcare LLC, in which she claims Cascadia failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In November 2021, Greene began working as a Registered Nurse at Arbor Valley, a Cascadia facility in Boise, Idaho. During Greene's time at Arbor Valley, Greene worked as both a Floor RN and a unit manager RN. Her job responsibilities included various aspects connected to the direct care of patients. Throughout her employment, Greene was classified as a non-exempt employee and was paid on an hourly basis. Greene continued to work at Arbor Valley until April 2023 when her employment ended. In May 2023, Greene -- on behalf of herself and others similarly situated -- instigated this lawsuit by filing an FLSA collective action, alleging a single cause of action for failure to pay overtime wages. On March 11, 2024, prior to completing any discovery, Greene filed this motion for court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), or, in other words, requested that the Court conditionally certify a putative collective group. In support of her motion, Greene filed a supporting declaration as well as three more declarations from other Cascadia employees. Sheena Freemen was a non-exempt caregiver at the Coeur d'Alene Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia location, whose job duties included direct patient care, from April 2021 to September 2021. Austin Peer, also a non-exempt hourly employee, worked directly with patients at Twin Falls Transitional Care of Cascadia as a certified nursing assistant. Gabrielle Messick, the last employee to submit a declaration, worked at three different Cascadia locations in the greater Boise area as a nonexempt social worker. Like the other employees, Messick worked directly with patients while she was working for Cascadia, and claims that she did not receive all the overtime wages that she was entitled to. Greene, with the support of three other employees, seeks to certify a collective group based on three policies: Cascadia's alleged automatic lunch deduction policy, time rounding policy, and common payroll formulas that fail to account for shift differentials, on-call pay, or non-discretionary bonuses when calculating employees' regular rates. Greene claims that due to all three policies -- either from performing off-the-clock work or from having a reduced regular rate -- Cascadia failed to appropriately compensate her and other similar employees for overtime wages. Cascadia opposed Greene's request to certify a collective action. While Cascadia raises individualized challenges to each policy Greene relies on to support a collective action, it makes a threshold argument that Cascadia cannot be considered an employer or joint employer of Greene or any other potential collective member. Based on its supporting declaration, Cascadia claims it is simply a holding company that "was formed to hold companies and interest in other companies and investments, including other companies that hold interest in still other companies." Specifically, Cascadia claims that it owns at least seven holding companies in six different states and that those companies own 100% of Cascadia-related healthcare facilities, all of which themselves are independently owned and operated. As an initial matter, Cascadia argues that it is not a proper defendant under the FLSA because it "is not, and never was, the employer of Greene or any of the proposed Putative Collective Members." In response, Greene argues that Cascadia is asking "the Court to indulge in a premature evaluation of the merits." While Cascadia's argument may be viable at some later stage in this litigation, it is premature. Because Cascadia's argument relies on its own evidence -- which Greene has not been able to explore through discovery -- and goes to the merits of Greene's claim, it would be improper to determine Cascadia's employer status now. Accordingly, the Court will not rely on Cascadia's proffered evidence to decide whether Cascadia is an employer or joint employer of Greene or any other potential plaintiff at this time. Thus, turning to the relevant question, the Court will address whether Greene has met her burden to show that the potential collective action participants are similarly situated. Greene seeks to certify a collective class composed of all hourly, nonexempt employees who work for or on behalf of Cascadia at any Cascadia facility who (1) received an automatic meal period deduction, (2) were subject to automatic time-rounding, or (3) received shift differentials, on-call pay, or nondiscretionary bonuses at any time from May 18, 2020, through the present. Greene, in essence, seeks to certify three separate collective groups. Cascadia challenges the certification of all three potential groups. The first policy Greene seeks to certify a collective class under relates to Cascadia's automatic lunch deduction policy. Greene explains that Cascadia implements a policy that automatically deducts 30 minutes from non-exempt, hourly employees. The Court finds Greene alleged a plausible legal theory based on a common scheme or practice sufficient to satisfy the lenient standard to conditionally certify a collective action. While it may seem like an oversimplification of this matter, that is all that is required under the "lenient" burden at this stage of certification. The second group of employees that Greene claims are similarly situated are those that were subject to an automatic time-rounding policy. Specifically, Greene claims that Cascadia employees were told not to clock in until within 7 minutes of their scheduled start time and not to clock out longer than 7 minutes of the end of their shift to avoid triggering Cascadia's 15-minute rounding policy. Greene further argues that Cascadia's time-rounding policy favors Cascadia more than it would round in the worker's favor. The Court points out Greene unquestionably omitted this policy from her classification of the putative class in her complaint. Greene also does not mention anything about the time-rounding policy in the "common questions of law and fact" or under Greene's cause of action for failure to pay overtime wages. For the time being, the Court will not certify a collective class based on Cascadia's alleged time-rounding policy. Finally, Greene seeks certification based on Cascadia's alleged policy of failing to incorporate shift differentials, on-call pay, or non-discretionary bonuses when calculating employees' regular rates. Greene claims that Cascadia failed to calculate overtime rates properly, resulting in employees not receiving overtime pay based on their "true regular rates of pay". In this case, the pleadings allege that Cascadia failed to include shift differentials and bonuses in calculating employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Further, both Greene and Peer testify that, based on their pay records, it does not appear that shift differential pay, non-discretionary bonuses, and other compensation were included in their overtime rate calculation. Thus, Greene has plausibly alleged a violation of the FLSA, and at least one other potential plaintiff is similarly situated, the Court finds. As a final issue, Cascadia argues that even if certification is appropriate under any of the three policies, it should be limited only to employees with patient care responsibilities who work, or worked, at facilities located in Idaho. The court agrees that the collective class should be limited to patient-facing roles but does not agree that a geographic limitation is appropriate. Based on the pleadings and supporting declarations, and importantly, given the underlying remedial purpose of the FLSA, the Court finds that Greene has met the lenient burden to conditionally certify a nationwide collective class of patient-facing roles. Accordingly, the Court will limit notice to those employees with patient-facing roles, however, it will not restrict notice only to employees who work in Idaho. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Djf30 COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bregante Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LYNETTE BREGANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY MANAGEMENT LLC; MINDPATH HEALTH LLC; VICTORIA LABRIOLA; ALEXANDRA WITTMANN; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02873-CSK (E.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bregante was employed by the Defendants as a paralegal. Community Psychiatry Management, LLC provides healthcare services. The Company offers medication management, telemedicine, mindfulness program, and psychiatry services for adults, adolescents, and children. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: jwatson@justice4you.com COOPERGENOMICS INC: Former IVF Patients Sue Over Efficacy of PGT-A ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ruth Retassie, writing for PET, reports that former IVF patients in the USA have filed class action lawsuits against several companies for misleading them about the efficacy of PGT-A. Class action lawsuits have been filed against CooperGenomics, CooperSurgical, The Cooper Companies, Reproductive Genetic Innovations, Progenesis, and Natera by former patients to recuperate funds spent on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). The lawsuits allege that these companies engaged in consumer fraud and breach of warranty by selling PGT-A to IVF patients, without disclaiming that this test is unproven, experimental, and entails risks of both misdiagnosis and embryo damage during the biopsy. The plaintiffs and class action members claim they would not have purchased testing if given accurate information about its efficacy. Paula Bliss, partner and co-founder of Justice Law Collaborative and counsel for the plaintiffs, said: 'Our clients have been forced to make consequential decisions based on PGT-A testing that was falsely marketed as having unproven benefits . . . we seek justice on their behalf.' PGT-A is conducted to analyse the chromosomal makeup of embryos. The aim is to improve chances of a live birth by avoiding transfer of embryos containing aneuploid cells. However, there is limited evidence that PGT-A improves IVF outcomes, and testing may unnecessarily reduce the number of embryos available for transfer (see BioNews 1097 and 1123). In the USA, this 'add-on' testing can cost thousands of dollars per IVF cycle, and is not usually covered by insurance. The lawsuits allege that the companies 'misled patients with false and deceptive marketing and advertising' regarding the efficacy of PGT-A testing for financial gain. They argue that the companies made several unsubstantiated claims, including claims that PGT-A is 99 percent accurate and that testing increases IVF success rates, decreases chances of miscarriage and improves pregnancy rates (including for older women). Former patients are seeking to recover the out-of-pocket costs they spent on PGT-A, along with associated damages. Allison Freeman, managing partner of Constable Law and IVF attorney, states: 'We have filed these class action lawsuits to seek accountability in an industry that seems to be increasingly guided by financial gain.' She added that IVF patients 'should not be taken advantage of with misleading and deceptive assurances when they are at their most vulnerable state and are entitled to damages under consumer fraud statutes'. Use of PGT has increased in the USA, from 13 percent of IVF cycles involving PGT in 2014 to more than a third of IVF cycles involving PGT in 2021 (see BioNews 1124). The question of how to regulate IVF add-ons including PGT-A has been a vexed issue elsewhere, including in the UK and Canada (see BioNews 1237). In the UK, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) introduced a traffic-light rating system for IVF add-ons to help inform patients (see BioNews 1212 and 1226). PGT-A currently has a range of ratings under this system, depending on the context. [GN] DARREN INDYKE: Seeks Leave to Redact Portions of Exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bensky et al., v. Indyke, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01204-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to redact the portions of the Brief that contain descriptions of the Exhibits, as well as information gleaned therefrom. The Defendants will meet and confer with Plaintiff pursuant to Paragraph 11(C)(i) of Your Honor's Individual Practices in Civil Cases in an effort to narrow the scope of the request. Defendants' counsel advises Plaintiff's counsel that they must file, within three business days, a letter explaining the need to redact the Letter Motion to Compel and Exhibits O, P, and S. Pursuant to Paragraphs 11(c)(ii)-(iii) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Defendants Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn seek leave to file under partial seal Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (the “Brief”), along with Exhibit R to the Brief, and entirely under seal, Exhibits A-P and Exhibit S to the Brief. Exhibits A and B are excerpts of the depositions of Defendants Indyke and Kahn, respectively. The depositions have been marked Confidential pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order in this action, so their sealing is warranted pursuant to the Protective Order and Paragraph 11(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. Exhibit C is a copy of financial records tracking the income and expenses of LSJ, LLC, from January through December 2008. Exhibit C should be sealed pursuant to Paragraph 11(a) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, which provides that parties are expressly permitted to redact “individual financial information” from public filings without leave of Court. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DiOG82 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Ruzumna, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2034 E-mail: druzumna@pbwt.com EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Bid For Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Dec. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (NYSE: EW) securities between February 6, 2024 and July 24, 2024. Edwards is an international company that researches, develops, and provides products and technologies for heart valve repair and replacement therapies, as well as critical care monitoring solutions. 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 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) Misled Investors Regarding the Growth of its Core Product According to the complaint, during the class period, Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors related to the growth of the Company's core product, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ("TAVR"), while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Edwards' TAVR platform. Notably, the Company's claims and confidence relied far too heavily on their perceived ability to engage the claimed low-treatment-rate population of patients and an overestimation of the desire for hospitals and other care facilities to continue to utilize and otherwise commit resources to the TAVR procedures over newer, innovative treatment alternatives. Plaintiff alleges that on July 24, 2024, Edwards unveiled below-expectation financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024 and slashed its revenue guidance for the TAVR platform for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company attributed the TAVR setback on the "continued growth and expansion of structural heart therapies . . . [which] put pressure on hospital workflows." Moreover, the Company announced three acquisitions during the second quarter designed to embolden their treatments alternative to TAVR, suggesting further that the company was aware of the potential for the TAVR platform's decelerated growth. On this news, the price of Edwards' common stock declined dramatically, from $86.95 per share on July 24, 2024, to $59.70 per share on July 25, 2024, a decline of about 31.34%. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court by December 13, 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. For more information, click here. 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 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation 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 https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/robbins-llp/ [GN] ELANCO ANIMAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE:ELAN) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Elanco, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/elanco-animal-health-incorporated. Investors have until December 6, 2024 to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Elanco Animal Health Incorporated securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court of Maryland and is captioned Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated, et al., No. 24-cv-02912. What is the Lawsuit About? The complaint alleges that Elanco develops products to treat diseases in animals. Two of the most important treatments in the company's development pipeline are currently being reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The treatments are named Zenrelia, a drug for a type of dermatitis in dogs, and Credelio Quattro, which is a broad spectrum oral parasiticide covering fleas, ticks and internal parasites. With respect to these treatments, the company stated that the FDA "has all data necessary to complete its review. All technical sections, including the label, are expected to be approved before the end of June [2024]." However, on June 27, 2024, Elanco announced that it expected the FDA would not approve either drug in June 2024 and that Zenrelia would come with a boxed warning on safety. As a result of the news, Elanco's stock price declined over 21%, from $17.97 per share on June 26, 2024 to $14.27 per share on June 27, 2024. BFA Law is investigating whether Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements to investors related to the FDA's approval of its drugs. Click here if you suffered losses: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/elanco-animal-health-incorporated. What Can You Do? If you invested in Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN) you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/elanco-animal-health-incorporated Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors (pending court approval), as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/elanco-animal-health-incorporated Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] ELON MUSK: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pampena Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELON MUSK is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Giuseppe Pampena, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elon Musk, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Sept. 2, 2024, the Defendant filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. On Sept. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude opinion and strike report of expert. On Sept. 27, 2024, Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion except as to the appointment of Steve Garrett as class representative. The Court ruled that Mr. Garrett is not an appropriate class representative. Mr. Garrett's specific identification of something other than the integrity of the market (and, of course, other than Musk's allegedly misleading statements) that caused him to sell Twitter stock "severs" any causal chain linking his decision to Musk's statements and rebuts the presumption that he relied on Musk's statements, notes the Court. Meanwhile, the Defendant's administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed was granted in part and denied in part. The appellate case is captioned Pampena, et al. v. Musk, Case No. 24-6249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2024. [BN] ELYRIA FOUNDRY: Wolcott Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ TANNER WOLCOTT and ALICIA WOLCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELYRIA FOUNDRY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01832 (N.D. Ohio, October 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on June 24, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Elyria Foundry Holdings, LLC is a manufacturer of gray and ductile iron castings, with its principal place of business in Elyria, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ENCORE SERIES: Callahan Sues Over Refund of Concert Tickets ----------------------------------------------------------- CAROL L. CALLAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE SERIES INC. dba THE PHILLY POPS; THE PHILADELPHIA ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATION; THE KIMMEL CENTER, INC.; TICKET PHILADELPHIA; FRANK GIORDANO; MATIAS TARNOPOLSKY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05495 (E.D.Pa., Oct. 16, 2024) alleges violation of the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff seeks to recoup the unrefunded amounts paid for her tickets and those of thousands of putative Class members across the country, and asserts common law claims against the Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, aiding and abetting, conversion, conspiracy, and concert of action. Encore Series Inc. was founded in 1999. The company's line of business includes providing live theatrical presentations, such as road companies and summer theaters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Zakheim, Esq. David L. Woloshin, Esq. Jordan Schlossberg, Esq. ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP 130 North 18th Street Suite 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 790-0100 Facsimile: (215) 790-0509 Email: DWoloshin@astorweiss.com JSchlossberg@astorweiss.com JZakheim@astorweiss.com FEDERAL BUREAU: Bacote's Appeal Dismissed as Prudentially Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MICHAEL BACOTE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant - Appellee, No. 22-1325 (10th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed as prudentially moot Michael Bacote, Jr.'s appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado that tossed his Eighth Amendment claim. While incarcerated, Plaintiff served as a lookout during the murder of another inmate. For this act, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, accepting a twenty-eight-year prison sentence. Following his conviction, Defendant transferred Plaintiff to the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado. Based on his appreciable history of mental illness, Plaintiff filed this action, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from the conditions of his confinement at ADX-Florence. The district court held that Plaintiff had released most of his claims as part of a class action settlement by mentally disabled plaintiffs at ADX-Florence -- a suit in which Plaintiff had once been the named plaintiff. Accordingly, the district court dismissed all except one of Plaintiff's claims and denied Plaintiff's request to file a fifth amended complaint. Plaintiff therefore proceeded on a solitary claim, arguing that Defendant had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his mental disability. To further this claim, Plaintiff retained a forensic psychiatrist who concluded that Plaintiff suffered from an intellectual disability and Major Depressive Disorder. Having reviewed Plaintiff's psychiatrist's report, Defendant's psychology staff examined Plaintiff themselves and concluded that Plaintiff suffered from an intellectual disability and Persistent Depressive Disorder. Plaintiff's diagnoses triggered the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Program Statement 5310.16, which forbids Defendant to incarcerate inmates with Persistent Depressive Disorders in ADX-Florence. Accordingly, Defendant transferred Plaintiff from ADX-Florence to the mental health unit at the United States Penitentiary in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. Based on Plaintiff's diagnoses, the district court determined that Plaintiff had an intellectual disability, depressive disorder, and suffered from serious mental illness. But before Defendant transferred Plaintiff to USP-Allenwood, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, holding that Plaintiff had failed to establish that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's disability. Because this was Plaintiff's only remaining claim, the district court also entered judgment in Defendant's favor. Plaintiff presents three issues for appeal. Plaintiff claims the district court erred by: (1) determining the class action settlement released his claims; (2) denying him leave to amend his complaint; and (3) entering judgment for Defendant. The Tenth Circuit holds this appeal moot because Defendant no longer incarcerates Plaintiff at ADX-Florence. Four considerations inform the Tenth Circuit's decision: First, Defendant no longer subjects Plaintiff to the specific conditions from which Plaintiff seeks relief. Second, Plaintiff asks the the Tenth Circuit to issue judgment without any information about his current conditions of confinement. Third, the record encourages the Tenth Circuit to hold Plaintiff's case moot. The Appellate Court explains, "As part of Defendant's settlement with the class action of mentally disabled ADX-Florence inmates, Defendant assured the class that it would move the class members from ADX-Florence to USP-Allenwood's mental health unit -- where Defendant now incarcerates Plaintiff -- or a comparable facility. Additionally, when Plaintiff received his diagnoses, Defendant promptly moved him to USP-Allenwood because -- per Defendant's internal policies -- the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not designate ADX-Florence to house 'seriously mentally ill inmates.' Thus, to the limited extent that the record reveals the conditions of Plaintiff's current confinement, it suggests that Defendant gave Plaintiff conditions preferable to those about which Plaintiff complained. This confirms that we should apply prudential mootness and dismiss this case." A copy of the Court's Opinion dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aLVH22 FURTHERED INC: Court Consolidates Class Actions ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO ALVAREZ-MIRANDA EZPELETA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FURTHERED, INC. d/b/a LAWLINE, Case No. 1:24-cv-06709-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order consolidating the actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court also entered an order appointing Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC - and - Arun Ravindra, Esq. Hedin LLP The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate all cases listed above under Case No 1:24-cv-06401-LJL, to close Case No. 1:24-cv-06709-LJL, and to file a copy of this Order in the separate files for both cases. Recognizing the value of counsel's agreement to co-counsel, as well as the qualifications, experience, and sophistication of both attorneys as well as their firms in this area of the law, the Court finds that the interests of the proposed class will be best served by the appointing Co-Lead Counsel as jointly proposed by both counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GddiJe at no extra charge.[CC] GARCIA TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avalos Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN AVALOS; and DANIEL MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARCIA TREE REMOVAL SERVICE CORP.; ROSA N. FUENTES; and LUIS GARCIA VELASQUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07290 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. Garcia Tree Removal Service Corp. operates a business that specializes in tree removal and related services located in Long Island, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 GATOS SILVER: Settlement in Bilinksy Suit Gets Final Court Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer of United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement and approval of the plan of allocation in the case captioned as MICHAEL BILINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GATOS SILVER, INC., STEPHEN ORR, ROGER JOHNSON, PHILIP PYLE, JANICE STAIRS, ALI ERFAN, IGOR GONZALES, KARL HANNEMAN, DAVID PEAT, CHARLES HANSARD, and DANIEL MUÑIZ QUINTANILLA, Defendants (D. Colo.). This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and Approval of the Plan of Allocation and Lead Counsel and WTO's Motion for Awards of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Reasonable Costs and Expenses to Plaintiffs. Lead plaintiff Bard Betz1 and plaintiff Jude Sweidan filed the motion for final approval of the class action settlement and motion for awards of attorneys fees and costs. This case arises out of defendants' alleged misleading statements and omissions concerning the mineral reserves at the Cerro Los Gatos mine in Mexico. Plaintiffs allege that Gatos Silver, Inc. and the individual defendants are liable for "violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 resulting from materially false and misleading statements, and omissions of material facts required to be disclosed." Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants materially overstated the mine's reserves and resources in Gatos's October 2020 IPO, the July 2021 Offering, and other SEC filings and oral statements based on a 2020 Technical Report that contained material errors. Defendants deny these allegations. On June 13, 2023, the parties engaged in a full-day, in-person mediation session before Robert Meyer of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., resulting in Mr. Meyer's formal mediator's proposal that the case settle for $21,000,000. The parties accepted the proposal and signed a settlement agreement. On February 29, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the parties' settlement agreement. On April 26, 2024, the representative plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and a motion for attorneys fees and costs. The proposed Settlement Class consists of the members of the Securities Act Settlement Class and the Exchange Act Settlement Class. The Securities Act Settlement Class consists of: all Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions or on the NYSE, purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock pursuant or traceable to the 2020 Registration Statement or the 2021 Registration Statement, and were damaged thereby. The Exchange Act Settlement Class consists of: (i) all Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock listed on the NYSE, from December 9, 2020 through January 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged thereby; (ii) all Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions, purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded call options on Gatos common stock, from December 9, 2020 through January 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged thereby; and/or (iii) all Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions, sold publicly traded put options on Gatos common stock, from December 9, 2020 through January 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The settlement agreement provides for a net settlement fund of $21,000,000. The class members will receive pro rata shares of the net fund based on their recognized losses in transactions in Gatos securities. The settlement agreement permits lead counsel to seek attorneys' fees and costs and permits the representative plaintiffs to seek an award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4). Class counsel seeks an award of $5,880,000 in attorneys' fees, amounting to 28 percent of the settlement fund, payment of litigation expenses in the amount of $226,314, and service awards for the representative plaintiffs of $15,000 in the aggregate. The Court ordered that: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and Approval of the Plan of Allocation is granted. -- Lead Counsel and WTO's Motion for Awards of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Reasonable Costs and Expenses to Plaintiffs is granted. -- Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of settlement only, the settlement class is certified as follows: All Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions or on the NYSE, purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock pursuant or traceable to the 2020 Registration Statement or the 2021 Registration Statement, and were damaged thereby; all Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock listed on the NYSE, from December 9, 2020 through January 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged thereby; all Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions, purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded call options on Gatos common stock, from December 9, 2020 through January 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged thereby; and/or all Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions, sold publicly traded put options on Gatos common stock, from December 9, 2020 through January 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The Court finds, solely for the purposes of this settlement, that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in that: (a) the members of the settlement class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (c) the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class; (d) the named plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all of the class members; and (e) questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The Court finds that the notice given to members of the class was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise such members of the pendency of this action and to afford them an opportunity to object to, and meets the requirements of Rule 23 (c)(2)(B) and (e)(1). Because the Court has afforded a full opportunity to all class members to be heard, the Court further determines that all members of the class are bound by the settlement agreement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Court gives final approval to the settlement agreement in all respects and authorizes and directs the parties to consummate the settlement agreement in accordance with its terms and provisions. Plaintiffs shall file the settlement agreement as a separate docket entry within ten days of the entry of this order. The representative plaintiffs and all class members are permanently enjoined and barred from asserting, initiating, prosecuting, or continuing any of the claims released by the settlement agreement. Class counsel is awarded $5,880,000 from the settlement fund, which represents twenty eight percent of the net settlement fund. Lead plaintiff Bard Betz is awarded a service award of $10,000 from the settlement fund. Plaintiff Jude Sweidan is awarded a service award of $5,000 from the settlement fund. Class counsel shall be reimbursed $226,314 for litigation expenses from the settlement fund. Neither this order nor the settlement agreement is an admission or concession by defendants respecting any facts, liabilities, or wrongdoing. Without affecting the finality of this order, this Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the settlement agreement, including its implementation. Judgment shall be entered dismissing this case with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWdf47 HAPPY GROUP: Files 9th Circuit Appeal in Rusoff Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- THE HAPPY GROUP, INC. has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Rusoff, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Happy Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-08084, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Happy Group is a for-profit human resources advocacy and business management consultancy. On Apr. 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, asking the Court to certify the following proposed Classes: -- a California Class defined as "All natural persons who purchased at least one carton of The Happy Group, Inc.'s eggs at a retail store in California, at any time from May 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, with a carton that stated "Pasture Raised on Over 8 Acres"; and -- a New York Class defined as "All natural persons who purchased at least one carton of The Happy Group, Inc.'s eggs at a retail store in New York, at any time from May 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, with a carton that stated "Pasture Raised on Over 8 Acres". The Plaintiffs further asked the Court to designate them as representatives for the Classes, and appointing Aubry Wand of the Wand Law Firm, P.C. and Robert Abiri of Custodio & Dubey, LLP, as Class counsel. On Aug. 25, 2023, the hearing on the motion for class certification that was set for August 31, 2023, was vacated pending receipt of the parties' forthcoming filings. On March 28, 2024, the Parties asked the Court to enter an order sealing certain materials filed in connection with the Parties' briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned Rusoff, et al. v. The Happy Group, Inc., Case No. 24-6226, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aubry Wand, Esq. WAND LAW FIRM, PC 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 HASKEL INTERNATIONAL: Sanford Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANTHONY SANFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HASKEL INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV21319, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 21, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09073 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to pay wages when due, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, and unfair competition. Haskel International, LLC is a manufacturer of high-pressure equipment based in Burbank, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Allison Scott, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 337-6550 Facsimile: (213) 337-6551 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class action captioned as BHAPINDERPAL S. BHANGAL, Plaintiff, v. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-04332-JSC (N.D. Calif.) with leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint by November 12, 2024. The Defendants' request for incorporation by reference and judicial notice is also granted. On August 8, 2023, a deadly wildfire swept through the town of Lahaina in Maui, Hawaii. Plaintiffs filed a federal securities class action on behalf of individuals who purchased Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.'s securities, alleging HEI and its top officials misled investors to believe the utility was taking appropriate action to mitigate wildfire risk. Defendant Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is a Hawaiian corporation and publicly traded company. HEI wholly owns Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. HECO, in turn, wholly owns Hawaiian Electric Light Company Inc. and Maui Electric Company. "Through HECO, HEI engages in electric utility, banking, and non-regulated renewable/sustainable infrastructure investment businesses," providing services to 95% of Hawaiian residents. (Id.) The Electric Utility segment provides electricity to customers through utility poles throughout Hawaii. On August 24, 2023, Bhapinderpal S. Bhangal filed a complaint alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court granted Daniel Warren's motion to be lead plaintiff and appointed Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. In March 2024, lead plaintiff Warren and additional plaintiffs Bhangal and Emaad Kuhdear filed an amended complaint on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired HEI stock between February 28, 2019 and September 4, 2023. In addition to HEI, Plaintiffs named four individual officers as defendants: -- Constance H. Lau, who served as HEI's President and CEO from prior to the start of the Class Period until January 2022; -- Scott W. H. Seu, who has since served as HEI's President, CEO, and Director; -- Gregory C. Hazelton, who served as HEI's Executive Vice President, CFO, and Treasurer from prior to the start of the Class Period until July 2022; and -- Paul K. Ito, who served as HEI's Interim CFO from July 2022 until January 2023 and has served as the Company's Executive V.P., Treasurer, and CFO since January 2023. Count One, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, is brought against all defendants. Count Two, alleging violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, is brought against Individual Defendants. HEI and Individual Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) Defendants are not legally responsible for certain alleged misstatements, (2) Plaintiffs failed to plead any statement was false or misleading, and (3) Plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. Defendants also request the Court consider 29 documents outside the complaint via the doctrines of incorporation by reference and judicial notice. Plaintiffs allege 25 statements were false and misleading when made. The challenged statements fall into six categories: (1) replacement of exposed power lines with insulated wire conductors, (2) utility pole maintenance and safety, (3) vegetation management, (4) collaboration with a consultant, (5) advice from wildfire collaborators, and (6) oversight of subsidiaries. The Court finds Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege HEI had authority over the challenged statements made in HECO and Maui Electric's blog posts, YouTube videos, sustainability reports, and press releases. So, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss as to these statements. Under the PSLRA, "plaintiffs must allege a misrepresentation or a misleading omission with particularity and explain why it is misleading." Defendants begin with an overarching argument that no challenged statement was false or misleading because HEI disclosed the risk Plaintiffs allege they concealed. Defendants highlight five excerpts from 79- and 142-page submissions to Hawaii's Public Utility Commission, which they contend disclosed the risk HECO's equipment could spark a wildfire. In this case, Defendants rely on short phrases lifted from lengthy regulatory filings, which are separate from the documents containing the challenged statements. As the Court is required to draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, the Court cannot dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on this ground. Defendants also contend Plaintiffs failed to plead any individual statement was false or misleading. The Court finds none of Plaintiffs factual allegations support a plausible inference HEI did not install insulated conductors in targeted areas prone to vegetation-related outages, Plaintiffs have not adequately pled falsity as to these statements. According to the Court, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled falsity as to Defendants' statements about performing regular maintenance on utility poles. The Court finds Plaintiffs failed to plead falsity as to Defendants' statements about trimming vegetation. The Court also finds Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege HEI's statements about working with community members and wildfire collaborators were false or misleading. Defendants contend HEI's statements about safety are not actionable because they constitute immaterial corporate puffery. The Court agrees. The Court finds Plaintiffs fail to meet the first hurdle of plausibly alleging subjective falsity. Plaintiffs point to the Wildfire Mitigation Plan to argue HEI knew its subsidiaries were not responding appropriately to environmental conditions. As to the HEI's statements expressing an opinion about the appropriateness of its subsidiary's actions, Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a material misrepresentation or omission, the Court concludes. Defendants argue Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege Individual Defendants knew information contradicting the challenged statements and thus, Plaintiffs fail to plead scienter. Plaintiffs allege Individual Defendants knew HEI made false and misleading statements because of their positions with HEI, and their access to material information available to them but not to the public. The Court finds Plaintiffs' allegations fall below the requisite level of specificity. According to the Court, the complaint lacks particularized facts indicating Individual Defendants knew the challenged statements were false. The complaint also lacks particularized facts indicating Individual Defendants were deliberately reckless. The Plaintiffs fail to allege the Individual Defendants had reasonable grounds to believe HECO was not installing insulated conductors, replacing utility poles, and trimming vegetation. Because Plaintiffs fail to plead a strong inference of scienter on behalf of any Individual Defendant, Plaintiffs fail to allege a 10(b) violation, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ZD1A4 IC SYSTEM: Seeks to Extend Time to File Class Cert Opposition -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LEZARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting his consent motion for extension of time to file opposition to class certification. In light of undersigned counsel's schedule, including a three (3) day out of state conference from Oct. 22-24, 2024, and national counsel's schedule with various other court deadlines, the Defendant requests that this this Honorable Court grant its request for (10) additional days to file its Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff's counsel consents to Defendant's request for a ten (10) additional days to file its Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). On June 21, 2024, this Court entered an Order setting deadlines related to class certification. IC System is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CwfaIB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEX, P.C. Union Trust Building, Ste. 700 501 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 E-mail: dmvugrinovich@mdwcg.com JUST MIKE'S: Case Management Order Entered in Sekala Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noah Sekala, v. Just Mike's Jerky Company, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01369-PAG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Patricia Gaughan entered a case management order as follows: -- Non-Expert Discovery as to Phase I shall be completed on or before Apr. 25, 2025. -- The pleadings shall be amended without leave of Court and new parties shall be joined on or before Oct. 25, 2024. -- Motions for court-approved notice and/or class certification shall be filed on or before May 26, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=00nWvM at no extra charge.[CC] JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Users Receive Payments of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Wile, writing for NBC News, reports that a group of e-cigarette users are suddenly finding themselves with a little extra cash, due to a massive class action settlement involving one of America's tobacco giants. In online forums and on social media this week, users of Juul Labs nicotine products have been posting screenshots of online deposits for hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars that they now have access to. The source of the funds is two settlements totaling $300 million agreed to by Juul and Altria over claims the companies misled consumers about the products' addictiveness and safety. They were also charged with unlawfully marketing to minors. Altria parted ways with Juul last year after acquiring a competing e-cigarette brand. Altria has denied the allegations, while Juul did not admit wrongdoing. A court has not ruled on whether either company violated any laws. Juul agreed to a settlement in 2022, but the Altria settlement, which was needed to kickstart payouts, was not approved until earlier this year. And it was only this month that claims for the approximately 842,000 eligible Juul customers began to be verified. The deadline for submitting claims has already passed. After deducting for fees, taxes and contingencies, eligible claimants were entitled to a total of approximately $202,000,000. An average claim amount was not immediately available; payouts were based in part on how many receipts a Juul user could produce showing proof of purchase. A lawyer representing the plaintiffs class did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In statement to NBC News, a spokesperson for Juul said "We are pleased to have resolved the vast majority of the company's past legal issues and are focused on advancing our mission, including our efforts to combat underage use of our products, which has been cut by 98% since 2019 according to the most recent government data." Vaping remains mired in controversy in the U.S., as e-cigarette companies and federal regulators continue to haggle over the products' health effects and marketing guardrails. In June, the Food and Drug Administration rescinded an earlier ruling that effectively banned Juul products -- but stopped short of greenlighting them for outright sale pending additional review of new health studies and case law. CORRECTION (Oct. 23, 2024, 9:52 a.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misstated Altria's ownership of Juul. It exited its position in the company last year after purchasing a competing e-cigarette brand; it does not own 35% of Juul. [GN] KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Loses Bid to Toss Roberson's Expert Opinion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, denies the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert opinion testimony in the lawsuit styled RODERICK ROBERSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RK (W.D. Mo.). Before the Court is Defendant Kansas City Southern Railway Co.'s ("KCS") motion in limine to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert opinion testimony of economist Andrew Schwarz. The case arises out of KCS's alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). The Plaintiffs are a group of current and former KCS employees working as conductors and engineers, collectively referred to as Train, Engine & Yard ("TE&Y") employees by the parties. Relevant to the current motion to exclude Mr. Schwarz's expert testimony, the Plaintiffs allege an FMLA discrimination claim based on KCS's practice of placing on-call employees at the bottom of job boards (i.e., at the bottom of the list to be called to work) after returning from FMLA leave. TE&Y employees, who work on-call schedules, may be assigned to one of a few types of job boards. The basic functioning of the board types is the same: TE&Y employees assigned to a board are placed on a rotating list based on when they last worked and are generally called to work in that order. A "pool board" is one which operates between two or more locations, one of which is the employee's home terminal. When called, TE&Y employees on pool boards typically operate a train from their home terminal to an away terminal and back, after a rest period. There are also "extra boards" which exist to fill temporary vacancies. The Plaintiffs allege that these policies, which they collectively refer to as the "bottom-of-the board" policy, violate the FMLA because they reduce the hours of work--and thus the ultimate take-home pay--of TE&Y employees, who take FMLA leave. The Plaintiffs retained Mr. Schwarz, an economist, to provide expert testimony as to a class-wide, formulaic methodology to assess the damages arising from the bottom-of-the-board policy. At the core of Mr. Schwarz's expert testimony is the assumption that, by being placed at the bottom of a job board upon returning from FMLA leave, TE&Y employees are harmed because of the additional waiting time before being called to a job. Mr. Schwarz identifies two ways waiting-time damages present themselves: Mr. Schwarz calls damages arising from the time an employee spends waiting on a board prior to taking leave, and losing the spot gained by that waiting, "Lost Priority Damages." He refers to damages arising from an employee being placed on OK Hole Status, even after being marked up, as "Off-the-Board Damages." The Plaintiffs seek class certification in this action. In doing so, they cite Mr. Schwarz's expert testimony as support for the existence of a class-wide, formulaic methodology to assess damages arising from the Defendant's "bottom-of-the-board" policy. KCS moves to exclude Mr. Schwarz's testimony on the bases that it is legally irrelevant and unreliable. The Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Schwarz's testimony satisfies Rule 702 for the admission of expert evidence and that KCS's arguments go to the weight of the evidence, a question reserved to the jury, rather than the admissibility of the evidence. They also contend that the class certification stage is not the proper time for resolution of the admissibility of expert testimony. In opposing KCS's motion, the Plaintiffs assert that a full Daubert inquiry is not appropriate at the class-certification stage. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive for two reasons. First, nothing in the relevant legal precedent precludes the Court from making a Daubert determination at this stage. Second, the admissibility of Mr. Schwarz's expert testimony is relevant to the Plaintiffs' pending Motion to Certify Class. The Plaintiffs cite In re Zurn Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011), for the proposition that the Eighth Circuit disfavors resolution of Daubert motions at the class-certification stage. In Zurn, the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court's "focused Daubert analysis" at the class-certification stage in lieu of a full-scale analysis. However, in Zurn, Judge Ketchmark notes that the district court adopted a bifurcated discovery plan, and at the time of the Daubert motion, only class discovery (not merits discovery) had been completed. Similarly, Judge Ketchmark points out that in Cody v. City of St. Louis, 104 F.4th 523 (8th Cir. 2024), though the Eighth Circuit boldly stated that the ultimate admissibility of an expert's opinion is, therefore, a red herring at the class-certification stage, the court's underlying reasoning centered on the fact that class-certification decisions are generally made before the close of merits discovery. Here, the Court rejected KCS's proposal to proceed with bifurcated discovery. Class and merits discovery occurred simultaneously and are now closed. Therefore, the evidentiary uncertainty from Zurn and Cody is not at issue here, and the Court sees no reason to delay a ruling. Nor does Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2005), foreclose consideration of admissibility of expert testimony at the class-certification stage in this case. While the parties' expert testimony is certain to conflict, that is not at issue now, Judge Ketchmark says. What is at issue is whether the Plaintiffs' expert testimony is admissible at all. The relevant precedent does not preclude the Court from ruling on KCS's motion at this stage. Further, Judge Ketchmark opines, the admissibility of Mr. Schwarz's expert opinion is relevant to the pending motion for class certification. In their class certification briefing, the Plaintiffs point to Mr. Schwarz's testimony as evidence that there is a "class-wide, formulaic methodology to assess the damages each Class member suffered" in relation to their bottom-of-the-board claim. The Court disagrees with KCS's premise that Mr. Schwarz's method does not measure a type of damages recoverable under the FMLA. In support of its position, KCS cites opinions denying plaintiffs various forms of monetary damages as unrecoverable under the FMLA (Rodgers v. City of Des Moines, 435 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2006), et al.) Judge Ketchmark finds these cases are readily distinguishable. Judge Ketchmark opines, among other things, that Mr. Schwarz does not calculate emotional distress damages, and the Plaintiffs are not seeking nominal damages. The Plaintiffs claim actual monetary loss in the form of lost pay as a result of the alleged FMLA discrimination. Mr. Schwarz has attempted to articulate a method to capture the actual monetary damage employees suffered as a result of KCS's "bottom-of-the-board" policy. In other words, lost wages, or at least a reasonable proxy for them. Ultimately, the Court is convinced that Mr. Schwarz's testimony is relevant and reliable to the degree necessary under Rule 702. It is sufficiently relevant because it purports to calculate, at the very least, an informative proxy for lost wages based on the best data available--employees' time spent marked up, time spent working, their ultimate take-home pay, and the relationship between these factors. It is sufficiently reliable because Mr. Schwarz uses a method of calculating damages accepted in the field of economics and applies the method properly to the case and to his expert opinion. Judge Ketchmark points out that what remains at issue are contentions over the accuracy of the factual assumptions underlying his method. Since the Court finds support for these assumptions, Dr. Schwarz's testimony satisfies Rule 702. Accordingly, the Court orders that KCS's motion in limine to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert opinion testimony of economist Andrew Schwarz is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvu787fy from PacerMonitor.com. KELLEY A. JOSEPH P.A.: Chaves Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES CHAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAW OFFICES OF KELLEY A. JOSEPH, P.A., Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-014926 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 17, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Law Offices of Kelley A. Joseph, P.A. operates as a law firm. The Company provides marital and family law, including: drafting agreements, negotiating settlements, and simple and complex litigation and trial. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Door Sensors --------------------------------------------------------------- Abby Bowman, writing for glassBytes.com, reports that parents who found their minivan's sliding door sensors defective and dangerous to their kids and pets recently filed a class action lawsuit against Kia. In the official complaint, filed in the Maryland United States District Court, Rachel and Andrew Langerhans sued the automaker. They claim that 2022-2023 Kia Carnival vehicles "suffer from a defect whereby the automatic sliding side doors close with excessive force, presenting a serious risk of bodily injury to anyone in the path of the closing door." The complaint cites a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall over the alleged defect in April 2023, but states that Kia’s fix didn’t cause the door to close less forcefully. Instead, dealers reprogrammed the doors to offer additional warning beeps and close more slowly. According to the complaint, many Kia Carnival owners have reported injury to themselves or their children from the sliding doors. The Langerhans, as the class representative plaintiffs, are asking for a jury trial. [GN] KOHL'S INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Murphy Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDY MURPHY, PAMELA O'DONNELL, LISA STREETER, and ROBIN WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KOHL'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05569-CFK (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers stored within its vendor's network systems following a data breach on or about February 14, 2024, until on or about, February 26, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Kohl's Inc. is a department store chain operator, doing business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart Guber, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com LABORATORY CORP: McDonald Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN MCDONALD, on behalf of the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Employees' Retirement Plan, himself, and all others similarly situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00680-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Biggs entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and appointing Damian McDonald as class representative, and McKay Law LLC and Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. as class counsel for Plaintiffs. The prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy are satisfied here. Additionally, Rule 23(b)(1) certification is proper. In conclusion, the Court grants the certification of the proposed class. The Plaintiff has defined the class as: "all persons who were participating in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between Nov. 8, 2016, and the present." The Plan is "a qualified retirement plan" made up of "[e]ligible current and former employees of LabCorp." The Plaintiff is a current employee of LabCorp and is a participant in the Plan. The Plaintiff, brought this action against the Defendant, alleging a breach of LabCorp's fiduciary duty of prudence in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on Aug. 18, 2022. On Oct. 24, 2022, LabCorp filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff then filed his first amended complaint on Nov. 14, 2022. On Dec. 12, 2022, LabCorp filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On July 28, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part LabCorp's motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZtMcYY at no extra charge.[CC] LAKESIDE WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: Appeals Remand Order in Doe Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAKESIDE WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to stay and granting Plaintiff Doe's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lakeside Women's Hospital, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00653-HE, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, is brought against the Defendant for alleged breach of contract. On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On Aug. 2, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to stay. On Sept. 13, 2024, Judge Joe Heaton denied the Defendant's motion to stay and granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The appellate case is captioned Doe v. Lakeside Women's Hospital, LLC, Case No. 24-6218, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq. Matthew Dean Alison, Esq. INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP 233 South Detroit Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 347-6169 Defendant-Appellant LAKESIDE WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, LLC is represented by: Andrew McAfee Bowman, Esq. Larry Dean Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART, HUFF, OTTOWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 - and - Lisa Houssiere, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 811 Main Street, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 646-1318 - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 - and - Jonathan S. Maddalone, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1500 - and - Ambika B. Singhal, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 2850 North Hardwood Street, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-1200 LEHIGH VALLEY: Ex-Employees Sue Over Violation of ERISA ------------------------------------------------------- Amy Unger, writing for 69 News, reports that five ex-Lehigh Valley Health Network (LVHN) workers are filing a proposed class action lawsuit against their former employer, alleging the health network mismanages its retirement plan. The complaint, filed Monday, October 21, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, also names the board of directors at LVHN, as well as its executive compensation committee. The plaintiffs allege that LVHN has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to control the retirement plan's Recordkeeping Administrative (RKA) fees, and also by failing to "defray reasonable expenses of administering the plan." They say they were paying double or even triple for their plan's RKA fees when compared to similar plans offered by other companies. The plaintiffs are seeking a number of actions, including class action status and monetary damages. In a statement Monday, LVHN said "We have just been made aware of the complaint and have no comment at this time on active litigation." [GN] LINCARE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Garate Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- LINCARE, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Ignacio Garate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lincare, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00768-CAB-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On May 24, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, dismiss class claims, and stay proceedings, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on Sept. 10, 2024. The Court held that the Plaintiff is a "transportation worker" within the meaning of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and is, therefore, exempt from mandatory arbitration. The appellate case is captioned Garate v. Lincare, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6238, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 21, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 25, 2024; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 24, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee IGNACIO GARATE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 LINKSQUARES INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Caicedo Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN CAICEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINKSQUARES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12642 (D. Mass., Oct. 17, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Caicedo was employed by the Defendant as a sale representative. LinkSquares, Inc. provides artificial intelligence solutions. The Company focuses on powered contract and legal document analytics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 - and - Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Emma R. Janger, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 - and - Mikael Rojas, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1225 New York Ave., Suite 1200B Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 929-0640 Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cuevas Due Feb. 14, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order as follows: -- The Motion for Class Certification hearing, previously scheduled for March 11, 2025, will be conducted via Zoom at 1:30 p.m. on April 29, 2025. -- Motion for Class Certification is due by Feb. 14, 2025. -- Responses are due by March 14, 2025. -- Replies are due by April 4, 2025. -- The Motion to Invalidate Arbitration Agreements, previously scheduled for Nov. 12, 2024, will be conducted via Zoom at 1:30 p.m. on Dec. 17, 2024. -- Responses are due by Nov. 12, 2024. -- Replies are due by Nov. 26, 2024. Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ggTN0d at no extra charge.[CC] LLR INC: Scheduling & Planning Report Deadline Extended -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Van v. LLR, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00197 (D. Ala., Filed Sept. 5, 2018), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadline to file scheduling and planning report. The parties shall file their Rule 26(f) Conference Report within 21 days of the Court's order on Plaintiffs' motion for leave to move to alter class certification order or, in the alternative, to file a renewed motion for class certification. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. LLR operates as a private equity firm.[CC] MARK CUBAN: Seeks Oct. 31 Date for Class Supplemental Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion to vacate ECF No. 315 and to set briefing schedule for supplemental briefing on class certification: Oct. 31, 2024: Deadline for Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. Nov. 15, 2024: Deadline for Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The data was not available to the parties at the time the parties filed their prior briefs. The Defendants believe that the data will further elucidate the arguments and issues identified Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA in the prior briefs and that allowing the parties an additional opportunity to clarify their arguments would narrow the issues for the Court and assist the parties in understanding each other’s respective positions. The Defendants do not, however, wish for their prior Response in opposition to class certification to be stricken as ordered in ECF No. 315. Given the many issues argued in the prior briefs that are not affected by Voyager’s data, and the many exhibits filed by both parties with their prior briefs, Defendants propose that it would best conserve the resources of the parties and the Court to maintain the prior briefing on file, and respectfully request that the parties be permitted to file supplemental briefs focused on the impact of the newly received Voyager data. Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality. He is the former principal owner and current minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks of the National Basketball Association, co-owner of 2929 Entertainment, and was one of the main "sharks" on the ABC reality television series Shark Tank. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s0PS4q at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher E. Knight, Esq. Esther E. Galicia, Esq. Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com egalicia@fowler-white.com atifford@fowler-white.com - and – Paul C. Huck, Jr., Esq. LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ PLLC 334 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 441-2299 Telecopier: (305) 441-8849 E-mail: paul@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com - and - Stephen A. Best, Esq. Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq. Daniel L. Sachs, Esq. Jonathan D. White, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK 601 Thirteenth Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 536-1755 E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com dsachs@brownrudnick.com jwhite@brownrudnick.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Remand Order in Arnold Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Mardillo Arnold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00221-RAJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Wage Rebate Act, and the Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance. On Mar. 14, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On Mar. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Richard A. Jones on Oct. 3, 2024. The Court ruled that the Defendants failed to show that the parties meet the requisite diversity requirements to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, the Court must remand the matter to the King County Superior Court. Further, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied as moot. On Oct. 8, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Oct. 3 Remand Order. The appellate case is captioned Arnold v. Marriott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6255, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2024. [BN] MATTEL INC: Bigelow Sues Over Unsafe Snuga Infant Swing Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- DESTINI BIGELOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTEL, INC.; and FISHER-PRICE, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00992 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2024) alleges that the Defendants' Snuga Swings products are unsafe and risk of suffocation for infants. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, nowhere on the packaging or on the Products did the Defendants provide consumers with a clear, conspicuous warning of the suffocation risks associated with the Products. When consumers purchase Snuga Swing Products, they reasonably believe that those Products are safe for use. No reasonable consumer purchases the Snuga Swing Product, from reputable and well-known brands like Mattel and Fisher-Price, expecting it to come with suffocation risks for their child, especially without an explicit warning of those risks. Because Mattel and Fisher-Price omit the risk of suffocation from their packaging and warning labels, consumers have no way of knowing at the time of purchase that they risk having their infant suffocate in the Snuga Swing Products, says the suit. Mattel, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of children's toy products on a worldwide basis. The Company sells its products to retailers and directly to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 Facsimile: (716) 852-5649 Email: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com - and - Alan M. Feldman, Esq. Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 Email: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com MDL 2873: 2 Suits Consolidated in AFFF Product Liability Row ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, entered an order transferring two actions captioned: (i)"Long, et al. v. 3M Company, et al.," C.A. No. 2:24−00040 (E.D. Mo.); and (ii) "City Utilities of Springfield MO v. 3M Company," C.A. No. 6:24−03164 (W.D. Mo.), all to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and assigned them to Judge Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873. The MDL involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs), which are used to extinguish liquid fuel fires, contaminated the groundwater near locations where they were used with per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which allegedly were contained in the AFFFs and are toxic. Because an MDL that incorporated all actions involving PFAS would raise management concerns due to its breadth, the panel has since the outset of the litigation limited the MDL to actions that involve claims relating specifically to AFFFs. For this reason, parties seeking to transfer an action that does not on its face raise AFFF claims bear a significant burden to persuade the panel that transfer is appropriate. Long seeks to represent a putative class of property owners in or near Canton, Missouri, whose groundwater allegedly has been contaminated by per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) manufactured by defendants 3M Company, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, The Chemours Company, and The Chemours Company FC, LLC. Although plaintiffs argue that they explicitly disclaim any damages from PFAS contamination stemming from the use or disposal of AFFFs, 3M correctly points out that the allegedly contaminated groundwater in Long is already at issue in the MDL. Specifically, the City of Canton (as well as the adjacent City of LaGrange) have filed lawsuits in MDL No. 2873 alleging that the contaminated groundwater in those municipalities--the same groundwater at issue in Long--was contaminated by use or disposal of AFFFs. The case of City Utilities brings claims against 3M for violation of the Clean Water Act and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act stemming from PFAS discharges from 3M's industrial facility in Springfield, Missouri, which allegedly violated 3M's stormwater discharge permits. Unlike plaintiffs in Long, plaintiff in City Utilities alleges that the groundwater contamination of which it complains was caused by AFFFs--specifically, from the operation of an outdoor AFFF fire suppression system at the Springfield Plant--as well as from non-AFFF sources. In the panel's order centralizing this litigation in the MDL, it was determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and/or perfluorooctanoic acid into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water. The actions in the MDL share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health; and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. The panel, hence, finds that the Long case and City Utilities case will share common questions of fact with the AFFF actions in the MDL and will benefit from inclusion in the centralized proceedings. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf MDL 2873: Transfer of "Deese" and "Hardwick II" to D.S.C. Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the move by defendant 3M Company to transfer the cases captioned "Deese, et al. v. Solvay Specialty Polymers, USA, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 1:21−00217 (D. N.J.), and "Hardwick V. 3M Company, et al.," C.A. No. 2:24−03121 (S.D. Ohio) to the U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for inclusion in "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; collectively, these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to as PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Plaintiffs in Deese allege that they were injured by exposure to PFAS emitted from two industrial facilities, DuPont's Chambers Works facility and Arkema/Solvay's Thorofare facility, neither of which manufactured AFFFs. On its face, the Deese complaint does not involve allegations pertaining to the manufacture, use, or disposal of AFFFs. In Hardwick, Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio against numerous PFAS-manufacturer defendants in 2018. He asserted claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all individuals with a detectable level of PFAS in their blood and primarily sought injunctive relief, including the creation of an independent panel of scientists to study the health effects of PFAS exposure. The panel denied a motion to transfer Hardwick I, which was focused "entirely on PFAS" and sought a unique form of relief not sought by plaintiffs in the MDL. Following that decision, discovery in Hardwick I commenced. Ultimately, the Ohio court partially granted class certification. The Sixth Circuit, however, vacated the certification ruling and directed that Hardwick I be dismissed because plaintiff could not identify which companies manufactured the products to which he was allegedly exposed and could not trace the specific types of PFAS found in his blood to the products that he allegedly used. Plaintiff has now filed Hardwick II, which he asserts remedies the deficiencies identified by the Sixth Circuit. The panel finds that transfer of the Deese and Hardwick II actions will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. "3M has not met its "significant burden" of showing that transfer of Deese or Hardwick II is appropriate," rules the panel. According to the panel, the procedural posture of Deese weighs heavily against transfer. Specifically, Deese is part of a consolidated litigation in the District of New Jersey relating to alleged injuries caused by PFAS discharged from the Chambers Works facility. Deese has been consolidated for discovery purposes with several other Chambers Works cases. Except for certain depositions of healthcare providers, fact discovery in these actions has closed. Thus, Deese is already being litigated in an efficient manner with other actions sharing common factual questions regarding the Chambers Works and the Thorofare facility. Transfer at this juncture could disrupt the consolidated New Jersey litigation. Because Deese on its face does not encompass AFFF claims and has already advanced to expert discovery, transfer is not warranted in this instance. As with Hardwick I, the focus of Hardwick II remains exclusively on PFAS, the panel opines. "There are no claims directed to AFFF products or AFFF manufacturers. The relief sought also remains unique--indeed, in our decision denying transfer of Hardwick I, we rejected defendants' characterization of the relief sought as "traditional medical monitoring." While plaintiff's limitation of his claims to PFOA and PFOS arguably bring Hardwick II closer to the subject matter of the AFFF MDL, it remains a unique action, transfer of which would unnecessarily complicate management of the MDL," it adds. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2024 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Order_Denying_Transfer-9-24.pdf META PLATFORMS: Menora Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-01470-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Meta securities between March 2, 2021, and February 2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On Aug. 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 8, 2022. On Sept. 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 14, 2023. On Sept. 17, 2024, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The appellate case is captioned Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6218, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 11, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 16, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 20, 2024; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 20, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD., et al., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 3rd Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Must File Class Cert Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOUSEF ALHINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00748 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order that on or before Oct. 31, 2024, the parties shall jointly file a notice stating whether they seek consolidation for all purposes, including class certification and trial, and whether Plaintiff Alhindi will file a single consolidated complaint with the plaintiffs in Case No. 3:24-cv-00928. As grounds, the parties submit that the complaints in both cases assert: (1) identical facts, (2) the same claim under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 1 U.S.C. section 2721, et seq., and (3) class action claims that have identical class definitions. Metropolis provides tracking and reporting software. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C2m9hr at no extra charge.[CC] MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Wallenstein ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a class certification ruling in the lawsuit entitled David Wallenstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mondelez International, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-CV-06033-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants for false, deceptive, and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing of their Wheat Thins crackers. The class action complaint asserted two counts -- (i) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and (ii) breach of express warranty. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Vince Chhabria on Sept. 25, 2024. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff produced convincing evidence that a majority of consumers would consider the "100% Whole Grain" representation as a reason for purchasing Wheat Thins and that the representation impacted the price that consumers were willing to pay. So, a reasonable consumer could decide that the representation was material to their purchasing decision. And the Defendants have not offered anything meaningful to counter the inference of class-wide reliance. Further, the Plaintiff submitted expert reports explaining that this case is suitable for a price premium damages model using conjoint analysis, which is sufficient at the class certification stage. The appellate case is captioned Wallenstein v. Mondelez International, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6192, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 10, 2024. [BN] NAT'L BASKETBALL: 2nd Circuit Vacates Judgment in Salazar Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MICHAEL SALAZAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, –v.– NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-1147 (2nd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing Salazar's putative class action complaint against Defendant-Appellee the National Basketball Association for alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710. The case is remanded for further proceedings. Salazar alleges that: (1) he signed up for the NBA's free online newsletter, meaning he exchanged information including his email address in return for periodic emails from the NBA; (2) he visited the NBA's website, NBA.com, where he watched videos; and (3) the NBA violated the VPPA by knowingly disclosing, without Salazar's permission, certain information about Salazar and the videos he watched. The Second Circuit must answer two questions on appeal: First, has Salazar pled that he suffered a sufficiently "concrete" injury to confer Article III standing under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021)? Second, did the district court err in holding that Salazar is not a "subscriber of goods or services" based on its reasoning that the online newsletter is not an audiovisual "good or service," and that signing up for the newsletter did not make Salazar a VPPA "subscriber"? The Second Circuit answers both questions in the affirmative. Salazar's alleged injuries are sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing, the Appellate Court finds. And the district court erred by holding that Salazar is not a "subscriber of goods or services" from the NBA, the Appellate Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Opinion dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zXHCcB NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Troyan Appeals $600M Train Derailment Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZSUZSA TROYAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement in In re: East Palestine Train Derailment, Case No. 4:23-cv-00242, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other persons adversely affected by a train derailment and chemical spill (vinyl chloride) which occurred on February 3, 2023, in or near East Palestine, Ohio, which was proximately caused by the negligence of the Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company and/or the Defendant Norfolk Southern Corporation. On Sept. 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of settlement. On September 25, 2024, Judge Benita Pearson approved a $600 million settlement between Norfolk Southern and people who live near East Palestine, where the company's train derailed and contaminated the community. Judge Pearson ruled that the settlement of the class action lawsuit was fair, reasonable and adequate. Interested parties Zsuzsa Troyan, Tamara Freeze, Sharon Lynch, and Carly Tunno appealed. The appellate case is captioned In re: East Palestine Train Derailment, Case No. 24-3880, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 10, 2024. [BN] Interested Parties-Appellants ZSUZSA TROYAN is represented by: David M. Graham, Esq. 1080 Montgomery Avenue, NE Cleveland, TN 37311 Telephone: (904) 567-6529 Plaintiffs-Appellees HAROLD R. FEEZLE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Adam J. Gomez, Esq. 123 South Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7107 - and - David C. Harman, Esq. BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH JARDINE 201 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1340 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 852-5600 - and - David M. Matejczyk, Esq. 5045 Park Avenue, W. Seville, OH 44273 Telephone: (330) 769-0911 - and - Jay H. Henderson, Esq. 614 W. Water Street Kerrville, TX 78028 Telephone: (830) 370-3992 Defendants-Appellees NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Alan Evan Schoenfeld, Esq. WILMER HALE 250 Greenwich Street 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Loses Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMON QUIROGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OLDS PRODUCTS CO. OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00390-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Dries entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. In sum, Quiroga has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there are questions of law or fact common to the class or that any common question predominates over individual questions. Quiroga therefore has failed to meet his burden on each of the requirements of Rule 23. Mr. Quiroga alleges that his former employer, Olds Products Co. of Illinois, failed to pay him for all hours worked and at the proper rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Wisconsin's wage payment and collection laws. Olds Products manufactures mustard and vinegar. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ms0pQj at no extra charge.[CC] PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v. PAC HOUSING GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending and setting certain class certification deadlines: Item Current Requested Deadline Deadline Motion to Certify Class (file Nov. 12, 2024 Jan. 23, 2025 and serve deadline) Submission/Hearing Date Dec. 12, 2024 March 20, 2025 Opposition to Motion to Within 14 Feb. 20, 2025 Certify Class calendar days of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Reply to Opposition to Motion Within 7 Feb. 28, 2025 to Certify Class (without calendar days leave of court) of Defendants' Opposition Class Expert Disclosure Cutoff [none] Nov. 15, 2025 Class Expert Deposition Cutoff [none] Dec. 13, 2025 A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=72ZaXv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casey C. DeReus, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: dereus@bespc.com - and - DeVonn Jarrett, Esq. JARRETT LAW GROUP, LLC 643 Magazine Street, Suite 301A New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (833) 554-6653 E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com PARTS AUTHORITY: Casey Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILE CASEY and RODNEY FOUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, PARTS AUTHORITY, INC., NORTHEAST LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a "Diligent Delivery Systems," and DAO LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a "Diligent Delivery Systems," Case No. 1:24-cv-02659-DLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing their motion for class certification from the deadline set by the local rules (90 days after the filing of a Complaint) to a date to be determined as part of the Court's litigation scheduling process. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), the Plaintiffs represent that they conferred with Defendants Parts Authority, LLC, Parts Authority, Inc. and Northeast Logistics, Inc., who state that they consent to Plaintiffs' request. The Plaintiffs have been unable to reach Defendant DAO Logistics, Inc. All Defendants have been served. In support of this motion, the Plaintiffs incorporate the reasons set forth in their memorandum of law. Parts Authority operates as a distributor of automotive and truck parts to the aftermarket auto parts industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oo7I2j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com - and - Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Todd Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com PERRIGO CO: Denied Bid to Alter Judgment in "Roofer's" Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- SCULPTOR MASTER FUND LTD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Roofer's Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Joseph C. Papa, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1-16-cv-02805, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Roofer's Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated brought this class action complaint against Joseph C. Papa, Perrigo Company PLC and others in May 2016, alleging that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. In June 2017, Lead Plaintiff Perrigo Institutional Investor Group (Lead Plaintiff) filed an amended punitive class action complaint against Perrigo claiming it and various corporate individuals violated federal securities laws. In November 2019, the Court certified the class in Roofer's, appointing the Lead Plaintiff as the Class Representative and its counsel as Class Counsel. On Apr. 5, 2024, Roofer's Pension Fund filed a motion for settlement. On July 15, 2024, Sculptor Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter judgment to exclude them from the Roofers' Class Action Settlement, to provide them a second opportunity to opt out, or to enlarge their time to opt out. On Sept. 5, 2024, Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre entered judgment approving the Class Action Settlement. On Sept. 12, 2024, Judge Renee Marie Bumb denied Sculptor Plaintiffs' motion to alter judgment saying all of Sculptor's arguments are unpersuasive. First, given the Court's clear instructions to class members on how to opt out from the class action that Sculptor failed to follow, the Court will not accept Sculptor's opt out by reasonable indication approach. Even if the Court accepted this approach, Sculptor's conduct would not satisfy it. Second, Sculptor has not shown excusable neglect for the Court to allow the late opt out (or give it another try to opt out). Third, Sculptor's due process challenge to the class notice fails because the notice adequately informed class members of the consequences of failing to opt out. Lastly, Sculptor's estoppel arguments are equally meritless because, among other reasons, it has not shown it missed the opt-out deadline because of Perrigo Company PLC's supposed misconduct, ruled the Court. The appellate case is captioned Perrigo Institutional Investor Group, et al. v. Joseph C. Papa, et al., Case No. 24-2861, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 10, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PERRIGO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR GROUP, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 208-1489 - and - Michael T.G. Long, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 597-2500 Plaintiffs-Appellants SCULPTOR MATSER FUND LTD, et al. are represented by: Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Owen F. Roberts, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7036 (212) 849-7115 - and - Mariellen Dugan, Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 970 Broad Street, Room 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (862) 233-8319 - and - Luke J. O'Brien, Esq. CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY 1085 Raymond Boulevard One Newark Center, 14th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (862) 329-7790 - and - Jonathan E. Pickhardt, Esq. WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN & KATZ 51 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 403-1000 Defendants-Appellees LAURIE BRLAS, et al. are represented by: Jane J. Felton, Esq. GREENBAUM ROWE SMITH & DAVIS P.O. Box 5600 Metro Corporate Campus One, Suite 4 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 549-5600 - and - Jonathan W. Wolfe, Esq. SKOLOFF & WOLFE 293 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 390 Livingston, NJ 07039 Telephone: (973) 992-0900 PILLOW CUBE: Hogan Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HOGAN and ELLIOTT HOGAN, v. PILLOW CUBE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00403-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs Robert Hogan and Elliott Hogan's motion for class certification and for leave to conduct discovery. -- The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks leave to conduct limited discovery and denied without prejudice to the extent that it seeks class certification; Plaintiffs may renew their motion for class certification, if at all, within 60 days of this Order. -- The Plaintiffs may engage in limited discovery reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issues of class member identification, class certification, and damages. -- The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated, nor attempted to demonstrate, that their choices of state law are "not arbitrary or unfair." The Court will therefore deny without prejudice their motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiff proposes the following classes (the "Putative Classes"): Nationwide Classes Class A "All consumers in the continental United States who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., purchased "free returns" for $2.98, returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned. Class B All consumers in the continental United States who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc. and purchased "free returns" for $2.98. Class C "All consumers in the continental United States who, prior to the date Pillow Cube, Inc., disclosed the 15% processing fee for returns, purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned. Wisconsin-Only Classes Class D "All consumers in the State of Wisconsin who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., purchased "free returns" for $2.98, returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned. Class E "All consumers in the State of Wisconsin who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc. and purchased "free returns" for $2.98. Class F "All consumers in the State of Wisconsin who, prior to the date Pillow Cube, Inc. disclosed the 15% processing fee for returns, purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned. In April 2024, Plaintiffs Robert Hogan and Elliott Hogan The Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendant for breach of contract, id. at 23; for declaratory relief, monetary damages, and injunctive relief for violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah Code sections, and, in the alternative, for violation of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xCvAFH at no extra charge.[CC] PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Dean-Chrivia's Bid to Toss Stafford Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Frank W. Volk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Virginia granted Donna Dean-Chrivia's motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint in the case captioned as BRYAN STAFFORD, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of THOMAS FLEENOR, JR., JOHN CRABTREE, STEVEN MARTIN, GARY TOLER, ELGIE ADKINS, and SABRINA EAGLE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00405 PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. THOMAS WEBER, BRETT BAVINGTON, TODD HESKINS, KRISTA VALLANDINGHAM, MELISSA JEFFERY, BRANDY EASTRIDGE, HELEN PERKINS, JESSICA MILLER, BRANDY EASTRIDGE, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., MARY STONE, DANIEL CONN, ELAINE GEDMAN, JOHN FROELICH, HUMAYAN RASHID, M.D., ANGELA NICHOLSON, MSN, APRN, FNP-C, AMBER DUNCAN, LISA MULLENS, LPN, CASSEY BOLEN, JOHN PENNINGTON, MA, LPC, NCC, NCSC, KENNADI SMITH, LPN, BRITTANI MARSHALL, RN, ASHLEY STROUP, LPN, DONNA DEAN-CHRIVIA, JOHN AND JANE DOE PRIMECARE AND WEXFORD EMPLOYEES, and TAYLOR BROOKS, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D. W. Va.). On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs, former inmates and/or pre-trial detainees at Southern Regional Jail in Beaver instituted this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals for alleged violations of their constitutional and civil rights. On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint naming Ms. Dean-Chrivia for the first time. Plaintiffs' counsel alleges Plaintiff Eagle -- a former "pre-trial detainee and/or inmate" at SRJ -- has four claims against Ms. Dean-Chrivia. Count I asserts an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Count II alleges an identical claim arising from the Fourteenth Amendment. Count III alleges federal and state law conspiracy claims. Count IV asserts a claim for medical negligence pursuant to the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, West Virginia Code sections 55-7B-1 to -12. Ms. Dean-Chrivia now moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff Eagle responds she "sufficiently alleges . . . [Ms. Dean-Chrivia's] unconstitutional actions and actions in violation of state law result[ed] in inadequate care cognizable under both Sec. 1983 and the West Virginia MPLA . . . ." Count I – Eighth Amendment Violations The Court finds Complaint falls grievously short of alleging a plausible deliberate indifference claim against Ms. Dean-Chrivia. Indeed, Plaintiffs fail at the first step: they are silent as to the subject medical condition, alleging only "Plaintiff Eagle indicated that she was under the care of a mental health provider and/or psychiatrist." Count II – Fourteenth Amendment Violations Free from the constraints of the subjective showing required under the Eighth Amendment, the Complaint nonetheless fails to present a plausible Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Ms. Dean-Chrivia, the Court finds. Assuming, once again, Plaintiff Eagle had a medical condition that posed a substantial risk of serious harm, Plaintiffs omit any allegations that Ms. Dean-Chrivia should have known of Plaintiff Eagle's condition or the risks of failing to treat her. Plaintiffs also include no facts explaining how Plaintiff Eagle suffered harm attributable to Ms. Dean-Chrivia. Those omissions alone doom their claim on Twombly/Iqbal grounds, the Court says. Count III – Conspiracy The Court finds there are no allegations Ms. Dean-Chrivia was present at or even aware of any of these alleged meetings, knew SRJ was understaffed, took some overt action to ensure it remained understaffed, or had any duty whatsoever to correct or report an understaffing problem. Count IV – Medical Negligence The Court notes Plaintiffs simply allege "Wexford Defendants" owed to them and breached a duty of care. They neglect mention of the precise duty owed by Ms. Dean-Chrivia to Plaintiff Eagle, much less how she breached and proximately caused injury. More importantly, they neither identify the type of "medical provider" Ms. Dean-Chrivia was nor mention the applicable standard of care. Thus, the Complaint is insufficient to give Ms. Dean-Chrivia fair notice of what the claims are and the grounds upon which they rest, the Court concludes. The Court grants the the Motion to Dismiss and dismisses without prejudice Counts I through IV with respect to Ms. Dean-Chrivia. Ms. Dean-Chrivia's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Stay Discover is denied as moot. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uG2b8r PRIMMER & PIPER: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Gaboriault Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNA GABORIAULT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PRIMMER, PIPER, EGGLESTON, & CRAMER, P.C., AND JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 2:24-cv-00113-wks (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge William Sessions III entered an order denying PPEC's motion to bifurcate discovery and motion to stay discovery. PPEC argue that bifurcation will promote efficiency since Plaintiff's standing does "not turn on the merits of the case," and because "merits discovery in this matter will be wideranging, expensive, and time-consuming." As a result, there is no longer "a single issue [that] may resolve the case and render trial on the other issue[s] unnecessary. " Furthermore, the time expenditure and expense related to class-wide discovery would be relevant only if Plaintiff’s claims were distinct from those of the purported class members. The pleadings, however, suggest significant overlap. Un-bifurcated discovery will avoid the needless duplication of effort and could reveal whether Plaintiff’s claims are atypical. Finally, bifurcation would delay consideration of class certification. Given the likely overlap between Plaintiff's claims and those of the class, such delay would be unjustified. The Court thus finds that PPEC has failed to show good cause for bifurcation, and the motion to bifurcate is denied. The motion stay is also denied, as it requests a stay while PPEC’s motion to dismiss and motion to bifurcate are pending. Because the Court recently issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss and resolves the question of bifurcation in the instant ruling, the motion to stay is moot. The Plaintiff Gaboriault, individually and as personal representative of a putative class, brings this action against the law firm of Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer and various John Does claiming that PPEC failed to protect certain personal information from a cyberattack. The case involves a data breach that allegedly impacted over 350 people. Primmer is a New England-based law firm focused on meeting the legal needs of businesses, institutions, and organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ejy3iY at no extra charge.[CC] PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Regina M. Rodriguez of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado has granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement in the case captioned as MARITZA RODRIGUEZ, et al., behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL FINANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-cv-01679-RMR-STV (D. Colo.). This case arises from a data security incident experienced by Defendant Professional Finance Company, Inc. on February 26, 2022 that involved the unauthorized access of files containing the personal identifying information and protected health information of approximately 2,000,000 individuals. Plaintiffs allege the Data Security Incident put them and other Class Members at risk of imminent, immediate, and continuing risk of harm from fraud and identity theft. Defendant denies any wrongdoing or liability. Plaintiffs assert various common law and statutory claims. Soon after Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint, the parties began discussing the prospect for early resolution. The parties now jointly ask the Court to certify the settlement class and preliminarily approve the proposed settlement. In the typical case where the plaintiff applies for class certification, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that Rule 23's requirements are satisfied. In this case, the Plaintiffs move for certification for the purposes of settlement and PFC does not oppose the motion. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23 Certification Plaintiffs in this case seek certification of a Nationwide Class consisting of: "All persons whose personally identifiable information was identified as included in the Data Breach and to whom notice of the Data Breach was sent." Plaintiffs also seek certification of two subclasses: the SSN Subclass and the Non-SSN Subclass. The SSN Subclass consists of, "All individuals who fall within the definition of the 'Class' whose Social Security Numbers were potentially accessed or implicated in the Data Breach." The Non-SSN Subclass is made up of, "All individuals who fall within the definition of the 'Class' whose Social Security Numbers were not potentially accessed or implicated in the Data Breach." A district court faced with a settlement only class need not inquire whether the class would present intractable problems with trial management," but the court must determine whether the other requirements for Rule 23 class certification are satisfied. The proposed Class (and Subclasses) includes approximately 2,000,000 individuals who had PII or PHI potentially compromised by the Data Security Incident. Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rule 23. In this case, common issues exist between Plaintiffs and Class Members, including (but not limited to): (1) whether PFC failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of information compromised in the Data Security Incident; (2) whether PFC's data security systems prior to and during the Data Security Incident complied with applicable data security laws and regulations; and (3) whether PFC's conduct rose to the level of negligence. These common questions are central to the litigation, will generate common answers, and can be addressed on a class-wide basis. In this case, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' claims all stem from the same attack on PFC's computers and servers and the cybersecurity protocols that PFC had (or did not have) in place to protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' data. Thus, the typicality requirement is satisfied. With regard to the first adequacy factor, the Court finds that the interests of the class are fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their counsel. Plaintiffs' interests are aligned with those of the Class because they seek relief for injuries arising out of the same Data Security Incident and in the same manner. Accordingly, the Court finds that all four elements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) have been met. Rule 23(b)(3) To qualify for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), class questions must "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," and class resolution must be "superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." In this case, the parties agree that common questions of fact or law predominate. The key predominating questions are whether PFC had a duty to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding, securing, and protecting the personal information of Plaintiffs and the Class, and whether PFC breached that duty. Because the common questions of law and fact depend upon the conduct of PFC, these questions predominate as they are unaffected by the particularized conduct of individual class members. The Court finds that the class meets all the requirements of Rule 23 and therefore certifies the class for settlement purposes. Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Rule 23(e) provides that a proposed settlement may only be approved after a "finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate." To determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. First, the Court finds that the settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated. The negotiations in this matter occurred at arm's length and the settlement was based on sufficient discovery. Second, the Court finds the ultimate outcome of the litigation is uncertain. Data breach litigation is evolving; there is no guarantee of the ultimate result. Third, the value of immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief. The Settlement guarantees Class Members real relief and value for harms as well as protections from potential future fall-out from the Data Security Incident. The $2,500,000 Settlement Fund compares favorably to terms approved by courts in other, similar data breach cases. Finally, it is evident that the parties believe that the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. Thus, the Court finds that the presumption of fairness is sufficient to preliminarily approve the terms of the proposed settlement agreement. Class Counsel The settlement agreement lists Jean S. Martin of Morgan & Morgan, Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, and Joseph M. Lyon of the Lyon Firm as class counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel states that, as appointed Interim Class Counsel, they have been centrally involved in all aspects of this litigation from the initial investigation to the present. The Court finds that counsel have sufficient experience in class actions and their knowledge of the applicable law, as exhibited in the case up to this point, weighs in favor of their appointment. Therefore, the Court finds that it is appropriate to appoint Jean S. Martin, Terence R. Coates, and Joseph M. Lyon as class counsel. A copy of the Court's Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XNDRmP PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Class Reply Extended to Nov. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE TORRES and RHONDA HYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., ACTIVEPROSPECT, INC., and ASSURANCE IQ, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order that: (1) Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of class certification is extended to Nov. 8, 2024; (2) If Plaintiffs elect to bring a motion to exclude Dr. Mathiowetz's opinions related to Class Certification, (a) The motion shall be filed by Nov. 8, 2024; (b) Any response to the motion shall be filed by Nov. 27, 2024; and (c) Any reply in support of the motion shall be filed by Dec. 9, 2024. (3) Defendants may submit an early motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' CIPA section 631(a) claim as described above, and (a) The motion shall be filed by Nov. 15, 2024; (b) The response to the motion shall be filed by Jan. 17, 2025; and (c) Any reply in support of the motion shall be filed by Feb. 7, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3gDetm at no extra charge.[CC] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Johnson Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAWANDA LASHA HOUSE JOHNSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Lawanda House Johnson, et al., individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Profit Sharing Plan of Quest Diagnostics, Incorporated, Plaintiffs, v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-07936, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On July 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Sept. 19, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Martin Dirks. On the same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Jonathan Reuter. On Sept. 25, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Martin Dirks, and the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Jonathan Reuter. The Order was signed by Judge Julien Xavier Neals. The Court held that there is no breach of fiduciary duty and, thus, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The appellate case is captioned Lawanda House Johnson, et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc, et al., Case No. 24-2866, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 10, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LAWANDA LASHA HOUSE JOHNSON, et al., individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Profit Sharing Plan of Quest Diagnostics, Incorporated, are represented by: Alec Berin, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. MILLER SHAH 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Defendants-Appellees QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC., et al. are represented by: Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 2222 Market Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5761 - and - Melissa D. Hill, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6000 - and - Tyler J. Hill, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 466-4160 RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HERNANDEZ Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v. RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-01861-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. Radio Systems takes a scattershot approach in opposing class certification, lobbing every conceivable argument as to why the class should not be certified, the suit says. In so doing, it misunderstands Hernandez's theory of liability, misconstrues California law on false advertising, and fails to credit Hernandez's common evidence—instead arguing over its merits. Based on a correct reading of the facts and the law, this Court should certify the class, the suit adds. Radio Systems manufactures and retails pet supplies and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xUTUCe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law dpulgram@sjk.law READING INTERNATIONAL: Valentini Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL VALENTINI and DALLACE BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00255-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying case as a class action and appointing class counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Specifically, Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the following classes: Movie Ticket Class: "All persons in the United States (i) who purchased one or more movie tickets from Defendant's websites from Feb. 6, 2022, until present, (ii) who were members of Facebook at the time they purchased the movie tickets, and (iii), whose personal video request information Reading Cinemas disclosed to Meta. Subscriber Video Class: "All persons in the United States (i) who viewed video clips on Defendant's websites from Feb. 6, 2022, until present, (ii) who were members of Facebook at the time they viewed the video clips, (iii) who had previously signed up for an account with one or more of Defendant's websites and agreed to receive emails from the Defendant, and (iv) whose personal video viewing information Reading Cinemas disclosed to Meta." Ticket and Video Class: "All persons in the United States (i) who viewed video clips on Defendant's websites from Feb. 6, 2022, until present, (ii) who were members of Facebook at the time they viewed video clips, (iii) who purchased one or more movie tickets from Defendant's websites; and (iv) whose personal video viewing or request information Reading Cinemas disclosed to Meta." The Plaintiff Butler also seeks to represent the following proposed California Sub-Classes: Movie Ticket California Subclass: "All persons in California (i) who purchased one or more movie tickets from Defendant's websites from Feb. 6, 2022, until present, (ii) who were members of Facebook at the time they purchased the movie tickets, and (iii) whose personal video request information Reading Cinemas disclosed to Meta." Subscriber Video California Subclass: "All persons in California (i) who viewed video clips on Defendant’s websites from Feb. 6, 2022, until present, (ii) who were members of Facebook at the time they viewed the video clips, (iii) who had previously signed up for an account with one or more of Defendant's websites and agreed to receive emails from the Defendant, and (iv) whose personal video viewing information Reading Cinemas disclosed to Meta." Ticket and Video California Subclass: "All persons in California (i) who viewed video clips on Defendant's websites from February 6, 2022, until present, (ii) who were members of Facebook at the time they viewed video clips, (iii) who purchased one or more movie tickets from Defendant's websites, and (iv) whose personal video viewing or request information Reading Cinemas disclosed to Meta." The case arises from Reading Cinemas systematic violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), through its intentional use of website code -- the Facebook Pixel2 -- that surreptitiously disclosed consumers' private video-viewing information to Meta Platforms, Inc. Plaintiffs also allege parallel violations of California Civil Code section 1799.3 for California residents. The litigation involves a uniform business practice, making it ideally suited for class treatment. Reading International develops, owns, and operates multiplex cinemas and commercial real estates. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ezuyAR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com jnixon@simonlawpc.com - and - Robert T. Eglet, Esq. Erica D. Entsminger, Esq. EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM HENRIOD 400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 450-5400 Facsimile: (702) 450-5451 E-mail: eservice@egetlaw.com SELENE FINANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Dominguez Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Selene Finance, LP's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as RICK S DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-06225-JSC (N.D. Calif.). Plaintiff owns and resides in a home in Hayward, California. Plaintiff executed a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust on his home in favor of a lender, which was later Selene services mortgages for residential loans owned, backed, or controlled by the Federal National Mortgage Association, including the mortgage on Plaintiff's home assigned to U.S. Bank. Many of the mortgage loans that Selene services, including Plaintiff and putative class members, are delinquent when Selene acquires the servicing rights. As a Fannie Mae mortgage servicer, Selene is obligated to follow certain standardized procedures that comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act," including a requirement that Selene only refer a mortgage loan to foreclosure once it reaches at least 120 days of delinquency. When Defendant initiates the foreclosure process for a particular mortgage loan, then the "specific mortgage loan is triggered for acceleration." It is Defendant's practice to send a letter to the borrower "immediately upon a loan becoming more than 45 days delinquent." So, rather than waiting until the loan is 120 days delinquent, "Selene sends a 'Final Letter' to coerce and intimidate the borrower into paying the entire default amount of the loan" premature to 120 days delinquent. The letters "create a false sense of urgency by threatening to accelerate the entire indebtedness of a consumer's loan" prior to when Defendant legally could accelerate. In fact, "nothing happens" to a borrower who fails to meet the deadline in the Final Letter "because Selene cannot refer to foreclosure and does not accelerate until the mortgage loan is more than 120 days delinquent." Plaintiff brings three causes of action against Defendant: (1) Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.; (2) Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code Sec. 1788, et seq.; and (3) Negligent Misrepresentation. Defendant moves to dismiss all causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint on the grounds Plaintiff did not comply with the notice and cure provision in his Deed of Trust. Judge Corley holds, "While the plain language of the Deed of Trust allows an 'assign' to invoke the Notice Provision, and Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the Notice Provision, Defendant has failed to show as a matter of law it is an 'assign' within the meaning of the Deed of Trust, Section 13. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss." The Court sets a case management conference for November 14, 2024. A joint case management conference statement is due November 7, 2024. The statement should include a schedule for discovery and summary judgment briefing on the assign issue. A copy of the Court's Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GGryMR SHOPBOBBY'S.COM: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Agostini Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOPBOBBY'S.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07847 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.shopbobbys.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Shopbobby's.com, LLC operates as a department store offering a wide range of products, including housewares, home decor, wall art, linens, health and beauty products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Has Until Dec. 9 to Respond in Enriquez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Enriquez v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV235 (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska extends to Dec. 9, 2024, the deadline for Signature to file a responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendant Signature Performance, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, is a provider of healthcare administrative solutions and services. Defendant Southeastern Regional Medical Center, doing business as UNC Health Southeastern, is a North Carolina corporation. UNC Health uses Signature as an administrative services provider. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Signature Performance, Inc. The Defendant requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in this matter. No party opposes this request. After consideration, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Defendant's Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time are granted; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is extended to Dec. 9, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/44mn7ksn from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: May File Response in Coit Suit by Dec. 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV252 (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska extends to Dec. 9, 2024, the deadline for Signature to file a responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendant Signature Performance, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, is a provider of healthcare administrative solutions and services. Defendant Southeastern Regional Medical Center, doing business as UNC Health Southeastern, is a North Carolina corporation. UNC Health uses Signature as an administrative services provider. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Signature Performance, Inc. The Defendant requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in this matter. No party opposes this request. After consideration, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Defendant's Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time are granted; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is extended to Dec. 9, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdktpuzt from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: May File Response in Reese Suit by Dec. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Reese v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV233 (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska extends to Dec. 9, 2024, the deadline for Signature to file a responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendant Signature Performance, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, is a provider of healthcare administrative solutions and services. Defendant Southeastern Regional Medical Center, doing business as UNC Health Southeastern, is a North Carolina corporation. UNC Health uses Signature as an administrative services provider. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Signature Performance, Inc. The Defendant requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in this matter. No party opposes this request. After consideration, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Defendant's Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time are granted; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is extended to Dec. 9, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryhazea from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Response in Canady Suit Extended to Dec. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Canady v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV231 (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska extends to Dec. 9, 2024, the deadline for Signature to file a responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendant Signature Performance, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, is a provider of healthcare administrative solutions and services. Defendant Southeastern Regional Medical Center, doing business as UNC Health Southeastern, is a North Carolina corporation. UNC Health uses Signature as an administrative services provider. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Signature Performance, Inc. The Defendant requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in this matter. No party opposes this request. After consideration, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Defendant's Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time are granted; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is extended to Dec. 9, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2v24rhyd from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Response in Jacobs Suit Extended to Dec. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Jacobs, et al. v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV234 (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska extends to Dec. 9, 2024, the deadline for Signature to file a responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendant Signature Performance, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, is a provider of healthcare administrative solutions and services. Defendant Southeastern Regional Medical Center, doing business as UNC Health Southeastern, is a North Carolina corporation. UNC Health uses Signature as an administrative services provider. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Signature Performance, Inc. The Defendant requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in this matter. No party opposes this request. After consideration, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Defendant's Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time are granted; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is extended to Dec. 9, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjnu9yzd from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Response in McLean Suit Extended to Dec. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230 (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska extends to Dec. 9, 2024, the deadline for Signature to file a responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendant Signature Performance, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, is a provider of healthcare administrative solutions and services. Defendant Southeastern Regional Medical Center, doing business as UNC Health Southeastern, is a North Carolina corporation. UNC Health uses Signature as an administrative services provider. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Signature Performance, Inc. The Defendant requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in this matter. No party opposes this request. After consideration, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Defendant's Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time are granted; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is extended to Dec. 9, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/22d87w3x from PacerMonitor.com. STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00369-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter the agreed proposed Preliminary Approval Order: 1. Certifying the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes; 2. Preliminarily approving the Settlement; 3. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; 4. Appointing Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of Bradford & Wilson PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel and James U. White, Jr. of James U. White, Jr. Inc. as Additional Counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. Approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice; 6. Appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; and 7. Setting a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and administration, notice, and distribution costs, and a case contribution award to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs initiated this case with the filing of their Original Complaint on July 7, 2023, in which they alleged that the Defendant failed to pay statutory interest owed on late payments under Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA"). The Plaintiffs and Defendant have stipulated to: (1) the certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (2) the appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives; and (3) the appointment of Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson as Co-Lead Class Counsel and James U. White, Jr. as Additional Counsel for the Settlement Class. See Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 3. Accordingly, Plaintiffs move the Court to certify Settlement Class consisting of: "All non-excluded persons or entities who own royalty or overriding royalty interests in Defendant's wells and who, during the Claim Period: (1) received Late Payments from Defendant for oil-and-gas proceeds attributable to royalty or overriding royalty interests in Oklahoma wells; or whose royalty or overriding royalty proceeds were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Defendant; and (2) who have not already been paid statutory interest on the Late Payments for such royalty or overriding royalty interests." A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production from and an oil-and-gas well after the statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing not later than six (6) months after the date of first sale, and thereafter not later than the last day of the second succeeding month after the end of the month within which such production is sold). Late Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an owner under Okla. Stat. tit. 52, 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay); (b) prior period adjustments; or (c) pass-through payments. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (4) the persons or entities listed on the Additional Exclusion List, including affiliates and subsidiaries of each. Staghorn provides oil and gas production services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qTFBd8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com – and – James U. White, Jr., Esq. WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C. Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Telephone: (405) 842-7545 E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com STARCO BRANDS: Ryan Seeks Class Cert Deadlines Extension -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN RYAN an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STARCO BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-00642-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation to the following four-month extension of the current deadlines to permit time for the Parties to participate in mediation with the Hon. Ronald Prager and should the case not settle at mediation, for the Parties to engage in formal discovery following mediation, as follows: 1. Further Status Conference for remote appearance by all counsel currently set for Jan. 14, 2025, be continued to May 13, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. 2. Joint CMC Statement currently due by Jan. 7, 2025, be extended to May 6, 2025. 3. Motion for Class Certification currently due by March 21, 2025, be extended to July 18, 2025. 4. Oppositions to Motion for Class Certification, currently due by April 18, 22 2024, be extended to Aug. 15, 2025. 5. Replies re: Motion for Class Certification, currently due by May 9, 2025, be extended to Sept. 4, 2025. 6. Motion for Class Certification Hearing currently set for June 24, 2025, at 26 10:00 a.m. be continued to a date convenient for the Court on or after Oct. 21, 2025 27 at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AtEx2N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 2001 Union Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven Di Saia, Esq. Bailee B. Pelham, Esq. BUCHALTER 18400 Von Karman A venue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Telephone: (949) 760-1121 Facsimile: (949) 720-0182 E-mail: sdisaia@buchalter.com bpelham@buchalter.com STATE FARM: Pitkin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA PITKIN and DAN GROUT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on March 12, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification, appointment of class representatives and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify injunctive and declaratory relief claims under Rule 23(b)(2), or alternatively, damages claims under Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of a class defined as: "All persons who, between January 1, 2015, and the present, were or are a named insured under a property insurance policy issued in California by Defendant, who suffered a covered loss to real or personal property for which they received payment of actual cash value (ACV) benefits that were reduced due to depreciation of sales tax, and who were paid or are reasonably certain to be paid benefits in an amount that is less than the applicable policy limits." The Plaintiffs Melissa Pitkin and Dan Grout are a married couple who own a home together in Healdsburg, California. The Plaintiffs purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from State Farm -- policy number 57-C4-6752-1—which covered certain losses to their home and all its contents. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3t4bus at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank M. Pitre, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Nabilah A. Hossain, Esq. Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq. Andrew W. Britton, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com nhossain@cpmlegal.com tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com abritton@cpmlegal.com - and - Jack W. Weaver, Esq. Rachael M. Mache, Esq. WELTY, WEAVER & CURRIE, P.C. 3554 Round Barn Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Telephone: (707) 433-4842 Facsimile: (707) 473-9778 E-mail: jack@weltyweaver.com rachael@weltyweaver.com - and - Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq. Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Jessica W. Hayes, Esq. Thomas M. Beh, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM Hancock Whitney Center 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Facsimile: (504) 584-5249 E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com amurray@murray-lawfirm.com jhayes@murray-lawfirm.com tbeh@murray-lawfirm.com - and - William H. Hedden, Esq. 1838 15th Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 850-0042 E-mail: adjustbill@aol.com SUN ENERGY: Plaintiff's Conditional Certification Bid Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-facilitated notice in the case captioned as JUSTIN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SUN ENERGY SERVICES LLC, d/b/a DEEP WELL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-CV-2155-CCW (W.D. Pa.). The motion seeks conditional certification of a collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Lawrence's motion will be granted in part. The Court will conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice, and will be denied in part, such that this collective action will be limited to the narrower definition the parties have agreed-upon. Mr. Lawrence's motion originally sought conditional certification of a broad collective. He asserts that the putative members of the collective are all, in essence, field workers, who are primarily responsible for ensuring that shale gas wells are controlled. He further contends that the putative collective members are subject to uniform decisions, policies, procedures, and initiatives, including with respect to job requirements and pay provisions. Defendant responded that to ensure substantial similarity of any collective members who may opt into the suit, the collective should be limited to "the particular pay practices claimed to be unlawful in the First Amended Complaint and distinguished from any other of a range of lawful pay practices not at issue in this case." Mr. Lawrence then agreed to Defendant's narrower definition of the collective. The Court is satisfied that Mr. Lawrence and the members of the proposed, agreed-upon collective are similarly situated. Therefore, the Court orders that this case is conditionally certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Sec.  216(b) and will proceed as such until further order of the Court. The collective action shall consist of the following: Current and former employees of Sun Energy Services LLC d/b/a Deep Well Services who have worked in the United States as a Greenhat, Leadhand, Roughneck, or Snubbing Operator from [date certain three years prior to date of Notice] to the present and were not paid for out of town travel, were not paid for the time spent attending pre-shift safety meetings, or who did not have the amount of any quarterly bonus included in the calculation of their regular rate of pay in determining their overtime rate of pay. In addition, the Court will authorize notice to these individuals with certain modifications, outlined below, to Mr. Lawrence's proposed Notice and Consent forms. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 15, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HvUQXt TAKARA SAKE: Tunick Seeks to Consider Sealing of Defendant's Docs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAKARA SAKE USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether Defendants' materials should be sealed. The Plaintiff has provisionally filed under seal in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment of Class Counsel, on Oct. 17, 2024. -- Class Certification Motion The Memorandum of Points and Authorities for Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion has been partially redacted to protect the disclosure of information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendant, by Circana, Inc., and by Albertsons Companies Inc. -- Boyd Decl. expert Declaration of David Boyd in Support of Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion has been partially redacted to protect the disclosure of information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by Defendant; -- Exhibits to Nassir Decl. Certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of Joshua Nassir in Support of Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion have been entirely redacted to protect the disclosure of information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendant, Circana Inc., and Albertsons Companies Inc. Circana and Albertsons designated the produced sales document, which is not publicly available, as confidential under the Parties' Protective Order (a non-party can designate "information or items that it produces in disclosures or in response to discovery as "CONFIDENTIAL"). The Plaintiff limited the redactions in the Memorandum brief and to the supporting declarations to only the lines that directly quote from or describe the confidential documents. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11MqZD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. Samuel M. Gagnon, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com sgagnon@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Katherine Phillips, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 2580 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com kphillips@treehouselaw.com TECOMET INC: Bid for Conditional Status of Action Due Feb. 21, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH WALLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TECOMET, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01005-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett Ludwig entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties' initial disclosures as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be exchanged on or before Nov. 22, 2024. 2. Amendments to the pleadings may be filed without leave of Court on or before Nov. 22, 2024. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 will apply to any amendment filed after that date. 3. All fact discovery must be completed no later than Jan. 9, 2026. 4. Primary expert witness disclosures are due on or before Nov. 7, 2025, and rebuttal expert witness disclosures are due on or before Dec. 9, 2025. All expert discovery must be completed no later than Jan. 9, 2026. 5. Motions for conditional certification of a collective action shall be served and filed on or before Feb. 21, 2025. 6. Motions for class certification and motions to decertify a collective action shall be served and filed on or before Aug. 22, 2025, and comply with Civil L. R. 7. Tecomet manufactures medical and aerospace products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8w4Ebz at no extra charge.[CC] TEMPUR SEALY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 25, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIET GENEVIEVE ANYASULU, et al., v. TEMPUR SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-03114-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an initial case management order as follows: Event Date Joint Status Report Due: April 25, 2025 Deadline to file motion to amend the June 25, 2025 pleadings and/or join new parties: Deadline to file Plaintiffs' motion for July 25, 2025 class certification, including any expert reports upon which the Plaintiffs rely in their motion: Deadline to complete depositions and Aug. 25, 2025 document productions for Plaintiffs' experts re: class certification: Deadline to file Defendants' opposition Sept. 8, 2025 to motion for class certification, including any counter expert reports upon which Defendants rely in their opposition: Deadline to complete depositions and Oct. 8, 2025 document productions for Defendants' experts re: class certification: Deadline to file Plaintiffs' reply in Oct. 23, 2025 support of class certification, including any rebuttal expert reports upon which Plaintiffs rely in their motion: Hearing on motion for class certification: Dec. 5, 2025 Tempur is an American manufacturer of mattresses and bedding products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eItJGi at no extra charge.[CC] THINK JERKY: Miller Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THINK JERKY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07979 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. 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, https://thinkjerky.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: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. 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. Think Jerky, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYDNEY FREDERICK-OSBORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 3:24-cv-00125-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Jan. 23, 2025, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, will move this Court for Class Certification. Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. 23(b)(3) that includes all women who were laid off by Twitter after they did not click "yes" in response to the "Fork in the Road" email that Elon Musk sent to the workforce on Nov. 16, 2022. Dr. Frederick-Osborn brings claims of sex discrimination under Title VII, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Dr. Frederick-Osborn worked at Twitter from June 13, 2022, until Nov. 18, 2022. Twitter was an American social media company based in San Francisco, California, which operated and was named for its flagship social media network prior to its rebrand as X. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qAuOXm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYDNEY FREDERICK-OSBORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 3:24-cv-00125-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to file Exhibits 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 to his motion for class certification under seal, and to redact portions of the Motion which refer to information contained in that exhibit. Accordingly, until Twitter has had the opportunity to respond, and the Court has had the opportunity to consider their arguments regarding confidentiality, Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to file the aforementioned Exhibits under seal and to file a redacted version of his Motion for Class Certification. These exhibits are documents that Twitter has produced in discovery that it has designated as confidential, as well as excerpts of deposition transcripts that Twitter has designated as confidential. The Plaintiff believes that these Exhibits do not warrant protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Twitter has designated them confidential and has not yet indicated whether it believes this information should remained under seal. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ju0j7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com UNITED FURNITURE: Fails to Satisfy WARN ACT Requirements -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Selene D. Maddox of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as TORIA NEAL, JAMES PUGH, KALVIN HOGAN, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. (ADV. PRO. NO.: 23-01005-SDM) (Bankr. N.D. Miss.). The Plaintiffs urge this Court to find as a matter of law that the Defendants have failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under the WARN Act, specifically the obligation to provide a "brief statement" explaining their failure to give the required 60-day notice prior to the termination of roughly 2,700 employees. The parties do not dispute the relevant facts. UFI and its affiliates were in the business of manufacturing and distributing furniture from its facilities located in Mississippi, California, and North Carolina. On November 21, 2022, UFI provided notice that it was immediately ceasing operations and terminating most, if not all, of its approximately 2,700 employees. UFI did not provide 60-days advance notice. UFI did, however, send three separate communications to its employees, informing them that their employment was terminated and providing some information in relation to the termination. On November 21, 2022, UFI sent employees the first communication. A day later, on November 22, 2022, UFI sent its former employees a communication entitled "Separation & WARN Notice". Then, on December 9, 2022, UFI sent another follow-up communication to its former employees. On November 22, 2022, the same day the Second Communication was received, UFI's former employees filed their first complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, before eventually commencing this proceeding. The Plaintiffs in this litigation are comprised of the plaintiffs from each of the consolidated proceedings, all of whom are former employees of UFI. The Plaintiffs' original complaints only named UFI as a Defendant. However, they eventually filed their Second Amended Class Action Adversary Complaint for Violation of Federal Warn Act 29 U.S.C. 2101 Et Seq., and Other Labor Laws and named four additional Non-Debtor Defendants: Stage Capital, LLC, David Belford, David Belford Separate Property Trust, and the David Belford Irrevocable Trust. While the Non-Debtor Defendants only asserted one defense to the 60-day notice requirement, UFI also asserted that the 60-day period was properly shortened under Sec. 2102(b)(1) because they were attempting to obtain capital to continue operations and that providing earlier notice would have precluded them from obtaining it. The WARN Act mandates that employers notify affected employees at least 60 days before a mass layoff or plant closing unless they fall within one of the statutory exceptions and supply a brief statement outlining the reasons for their noncompliance when notice is finally given. After a thorough review of the parties' pleadings and arguments at the hearing conducted on August 22, 2024, the Court finds that UFI did not adhere to this requirement. Despite failing to provide the 60-day notice, UFI also failed to offer an adequate brief statement explaining their reasons for not giving at least 60 days' notice prior to terminating its employees. As a result, the Defendants are precluded from asserting any statutory defenses or exceptions under Sec. 2102(b), as UFI's noncompliance with the brief statement requirement contravenes the WARN Act's requirements and purpose. Judge Maddox concludes that the Communications sent to the Plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the factual circumstances justifying the reduction of the statutory notice period. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Defendants could meet the substantive requirements of either defense under Sec. 2102(b), and that they provided as much notice as practicable, the Communications still lacked the mandatory brief statement required under Sec. 2102(b)(3). The omission of specific, factual information renders the Defendants' Communications insufficient as a matter of law." A copy of the Court's decision dated October 18, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijLAFV About United Furniture Industries United Furniture Industries, Inc., manufactures and sells upholstery. It offers bonded leather and upholstery fabric recliners, reclining sofas and loveseats, sectionals, and sofa sleepers, as well as stationary sofas, loveseats, chairs, and ottomans. United Furniture Industries was subject to an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. N.D. Miss. Case No. 22-13422) filed on Dec. 30, 2022. The petition was signed by alleged creditors Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Security Associates of Mississippi Alabama LLC, and V & B International, Inc. On Jan. 18, 2023, the court entered the order for relief, thereby, converting the case to one under Chapter 11. On Jan. 31, 2023, eight affiliates of United Furniture Industries filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The affiliates are LS Logistics, LLC, Furniture Wood, Inc., UFI Transportation, LLC, United Wood Products, Inc., Associated Bunk Bed Company, FW Acquisition, LLC, UFI Royal Development, LLC, and UFI Exporter, Inc. Their Chapter 11 cases are jointly administered under Case No. 22-13422. Judge Selene D. Maddox oversees the cases. Wells Fargo is represented by R. Spencer Clift, III, Esq., while Security Associates is represented by Andrew C. Allen, Esq., at The Law Offices of Andrew C. Allen. Derek Henderson is the trustee appointed in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases. The trustee hired McCraney, Montagnet, Quin, Noble, PLLC as bankruptcy counsel; King & Spencer, PLLC, NC Eminent Domain Law Firm and Mullin Hoard & Brown, LLP as special counsels; Harper Rains Knight & Company as financial advisor; and B. Riley Real Estate, LLC as real estate advisor. UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson "Phone Call" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the following class: "All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom United HealthCare Services, Inc. placed a call regarding the Optum (TM) HouseCalls program relating to a UnitedHealthcare plan, (2) directed to a cellular telephone number customarily used by a person who is not and was not a UnitedHealthcare member or plan holder, (3) in connection with which United HealthCare Services, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from Oct. 12, 2019 through the date of class certification"; -- appointing her as a representative for the class; -- appointing Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC ("GDR") as counsel for the class; and -- directing the parties to propose notice to the class. The proposed class definition is not vague. Instead, it identifies a particular group of individuals (non-UnitedHealthcare members or plan holders) harmed in a particular way (they received prerecorded voice messages from United on their cellular telephones) during a specific period of time (October 12, 2019, through the date of class certification). The proposed class definition is not limited by subjective criteria. For example, it is not defined as "persons frustrated by United's prerecorded voice messages." And the proposed class is not defined by way of language that would create a fail-safe class, such as "all persons who have a valid TCPA claim against United." So if United prevails on the merits, res judicata will bar members of the proposed class from re-litigating their claims. Consequently, the class is ascertainable. United Healthcare provides hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FEbUEe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson Seeks to Seal Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal her motion for class certification and supporting exhibits. 1. Ms. Johnson alleges the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with calls it placed to her and members of her proposed class, without prior express consent. 2. Pursuant to the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order No. (Class Cert), Ms. Johnson must file the motion on Oct. 18, 2024. 3. To support class certification, Ms. Johnson extensively quotes, refers to, relies upon, and therefore attaches to the Motion certain material, including written discovery, document productions, and deposition testimony, designated confidential by Defendant and therefore restricted from public disclosure. United Health care provides hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSnFZp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com UNIVERSAL STAINLESS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Aperam ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Universal Stainless & Alloy Products Inc. (Nasdaq: USAP), relating to its proposed merger with Aperam US Absolute LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, all USAP shares will be automatically converted into the right to receive $45.00 per share. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/universal-stainless-alloy-products-inc/. 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 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] VI-JON LLC: Parties Must File Joint Statement by Nov. 14 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristina Loughlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Vi-Jon, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-11555-MLW (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Wolf entered an order that counsel for the parties confer and file by Nov. 14, 2024, a joint statement regarding whether the parties have reached an agreement regarding Plaintiff's remaining claim(s) and, if not, proposing a schedule for further proceedings in this matter. On Oct. 4, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit entered an order denying Plaintiff's request for leave to seek an interlocutory appeal of this Court's denial of class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OmGvF2 at no extra charge.[CC] VSS-SOUTHERN THEATERS: Hoge Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY HOGE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled JEFFREY HOGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VSS-Southern Theaters LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00346-WO-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought this complaint against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. On June 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Sept. 10, 2024, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr., granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned Jeffrey Hoge v. VSS-Southern Theaters LLC, Case No. 24-2009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 11, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY HOGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Allen Caddell, Esq. Cynthia Bodendieck Chapman, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 - and - Leslie Cooper Harrell, Esq. Allison Van Laningham Mullins, Esq. MULLINS DUNCAN HARRELL & RUSSELL PLLC 300 North Greene Street Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 645-3320 Defendant-Appellee VSS-SOUTHERN THEATERS LLC is represented by: Adam Doerr, Esq. Jazzmin M. Romero, Esq. ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA 101 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-8114 (704) 377-8163 - and - Andrew R. Lee, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-8322 WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement Gets Court OK ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aljanal Carroll, Claudia Provost Charles, Tiffany Fair, and Tareion Fluker, v. Walden University, LLC, and Walden e-Learning, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00051-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie Rubin entered an order approving proposed class action settlement and certification of class: -- The Court finally certifies the Civil Action, for purposes of the Settlement, as a class action on behalf of the following Class: (a) all Black students who enrolled in and/or began classes for Walden's DBA program between August 1, 2008, and January 31, 2018, and were charged for and successfully completed Excess Capstone Credits; (b) all Black students who enrolled in and/or began classes for Walden's DBA program between August 1, 2008, and January 31, 2018, and were charged for and successfully completed Excess Capstone Credits, and applied for and/or received student loans or payment plans to pay for some or all of their Walden education; and (c) all female students who enrolled in and/or began classes for Walden's DBA program between August 1, 2008, and January 31, 2018 and were charged for and successfully completed Excess Capstone Credits, and applied for and/or received student loans or payment plans to pay for some or all of their Walden education; excluding (1) the Judge presiding over this action (or the Judge or Magistrate presiding over the action through which this matter is presented for settlement), and members of their families; (2) the defendants, defendants' subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. Plaintiffs' Counsel and Plaintiffs are hereby appointed to represent the Class. Relman Colfax PLLC is hereby appointed as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. The Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded the sum of $7,125,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid by Defendants in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. $25,000 is awarded as a payment to each of the named Plaintiffs Aljanal Carroll, Claudia Provost Charles, Tiffany Fair, and Tareion Fluker. The balance of the funds in the Escrow Account shall be distributed pro rata to Qualified Class Members based on the proportion of each Qualified Class Member's Excess Capstone Credits to the sum of all Qualified Class Members' Excess Capstone Credits, except that the amount otherwise due to any Qualified Class Member who received a Thornhill Payment shall be reduced by the amount of such Payment so long as such Qualified Class Member waived confidentiality with respect to the settlement of the Thornhill litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fan3nP at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA IVANOFF, et al., v. WALMART INC., CL PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, LUMINEX HOME DECOR AND FRAGRANCE COMPANY, LLC AND CANDLE-LITE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00896-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the joint motion to strike Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and suggestions in support as procedurally improper per S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 23.3. The Defendants reserve their right to substantively respond to Plaintiffs' motion, should this court deny this motion to strike plaintiff's motion for class certification and suggestions in support. Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mhtLKJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Keith A savidge, Esq. Terese M. Fennell, Esq. SEELEY, SAVIDGE, EBERT & GOURASH CO., LPA 26600 Detroit Road Cleveland, OH 44145 Telephone: (216) 566-8200 Facsimile: (216) 566-0213 E-mail: kasavidge@sseg-law.com tfennell@sseg-law.com - and - Byron A. Bowles, Jr., Esq. Alan T. Fogleman, Esq. Brian M. Israel, Esq. MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE & PHILLIPS, P.A. 10 E. Cambridge Circle Dr., suite 300 Kansas City, KS 66103 Telephone: (913) 371-3838 Facsimile: (913) 371-4722 E-mail: bbowles@mvplaw.com afogleman@mvplaw.com bisrael@mvplaw.com - and - Beth Schneider Naylor, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 3300 Great American Tower 301 E. Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-6800 Facsimile: (513) 651-6981 E-mail: bnaylor@fbtlaw.com - and - David E. Williamson, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY P.C. 312 Elm Street, Suite 1850 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 372-6816 Facsimile: (513) 372-6801 E-mail: dewilliamson@mdwcg.com WEBCOLLEX LLC: Court Tosses Gutierrez's Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBCOLLEX, LLC d/b/a CKS Financial., Case No. 2:23-cv-00988-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order denying the motion to certify class. The Plaintiff filed the case as a putative class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals with whom defendant engaged in similar debt collection activities, which plaintiff alleges are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Act. On July 17, 2024, plaintiff moved to certify and represent two classes, defined as follows: (1) National Class "All consumers with whom Defendant engaged in debt collection communications utilizing an initial written collection communication substantially similar to the e-mail sent to Plaintiff since (1) one year prior to March 27, 2023." (2) California Sub-Class "All consumers in the State of California with whom Defendant engaged in debt collection activities utilizing an initial written collection communication substantially similar to the e-mail sent to Plaintiff since (1) one year prior to March 27, 2023." The Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 25, 2023, alleging that Webcollex committed violations of The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). and The California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CKS is a full-service accounts receivables management firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1MEcGZ at no extra charge.[CC] WESTECH SECURITY: Carrasquillo Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA CARRASQUILLO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. WESTECH SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04931-MKV-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b). Westech offers armed and unarmed security, mobile patrol, and investigative services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8alqgX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 WESTERN CONFERENCE: Paieri's Bid for Leave to Amend Action Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PAIERI, v. WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00922-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order: -- granting Paieri's motion for leave to amend, and -- denying as moot Paieri's alternative Motion to Permit Putative Named Plaintiff and Class 1 Member Stanley Sawyer to Intervene. Paieri shall file his proposed Second Amended Complaint by Oct. 24, 2024. As requested by Defendants, the Court will permit sufficient time to conduct discovery related to Sawyer before the class certification motion filing deadline. The Court therefore orders the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint status report proposing a modified scheduling order by no later than Oct. 24, 2024. Although Defendants' brief and accompanying declaration address in detail Sawyer's inadequacy as a class representative for putative Class 1, the Court sees no reason to follow suit; denying leave to amend on these grounds would require the Court to leap ahead to a Rule 23 certification analysis. Defendants have failed to establish that Paieri's proposed amendments to the FAC are futile. Because the Rule 15(a)(2) standard under which the Court considers Paieri's motion is generous, the Court finds it more prudent to resolve Defendants' challenge to Sawyer's ability to adequately represent Class 1 as part of Paieri's forthcoming motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H2dtN0 at no extra charge.[CC] WM TECHNOLOGY: Investors Sue Over Misleading and False Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Borchardt of Green Market Report reports that investors filed a class action lawsuit against cannabis online marketplace WM Technology Inc. (NASDAQ: MAPS), better known as Weedmaps, citing the company's misleading and false statements. Misleading statements In September, Green Market Report wrote that Weedmaps agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) $1.5 million to settle claims about misleading investors on the company's metrics. The SEC charged that Weemaps executives padded the user stats to bolster the company's apparent performance to investors. "WM Technology misleadingly reported substantial and continued MAU growth and emphasized the strength and growth of its user base in its public filings and earnings calls," the SEC charged. "These purportedly 'active' users did not volitionally seek out the WM Technology site, and, in most instances, they took no action whatsoever on the site. Despite the reported growth in MAU, WM Technology's user engagement metrics were stagnant or declining." The SEC said that the company's former CEO Chris Beals and former CFO Arden Lee both misled securities regulators and investors on the strength of its MAU numbers and the fact that the supposedly growing metric included supposed site visitors who were redirected to Weedmaps.com from pop-up ads on other websites, the SEC said. The day after the SEC announced that the company settled, it announced that Beals and Lee each agreed to pay a fine of $175,000. Class action case The complaint essentially repeated the same timeline that the SEC outlined when it announced its allegations. The investors are adding other executives to the lawsuit beyond Beals and Lee. In addition to those executives, the investors have included executives from the Special Purpose Acquisition Corporation Silver Spike that brought Weedmaps public: -- Douglas Francis, Executive Chair -- Susan Echard, Interim Chief Financial Officer -- Mary Hoitt, interim chief financial officer of WM Technology from July 2023 until approximately February 2024. -- Scott Gordon, Chief Executive Officer of Silver Spike from its inception until the merger with Legacy WM. -- William Healy, President of Silver Spike from its inception until the merger with Legacy WM. -- Gregory M. Gentile Chief Financial Officer of Silver Spike from its inception until the merger with Legacy WM. NASDAQ adds to problems As Weedmaps continues to deal with the fallout from the misdeeds of the previous management team, on Oct. 11, NASDAQ told the company its share price no longer met the minimum threshold of a dollar to remain listed. As per protocol, Weedmaps has 180 days to get its share price back over a dollar. If it can't accomplish this, the NASDAQ will give them another 180 days. The company warned investors that it might not be successful in getting the stock price higher within 180 days. Weedmaps stock closed at 89 cents on Friday, October 18, down from its 52-week high of $1.47. According to Simply Wall Street, "A total of 25 investors have a majority stake in the company with 44% ownership." The article also stated that individual investors own 52% of the company. It also stated, "Morgan Stanley, Investment Banking and Brokerage Investments is currently the largest shareholder, with 6.2% of shares outstanding. Douglas Francis is the second largest shareholder owning 4.9% of common stock, and The Vanguard Group, Inc. holds about 4.6% of the company stock." [GN] ********* 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 ***