Monday, July 31, 2023
In a accurate case from the District of Colorado, a federal judge made clear that (at least in the Tenth Circuit) the first step of conditional certification is not just a rubber stamp to move on to the next stage of litigation in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action lawsuits. And while other courts are rejecting the two-step process altogether (see our accurate blog post here), even when the lower conditional certification standard is applied, it still can have some teeth to it.
In Bowling v. DaVita, Inc., the plaintiff sought conditional certification of a nationwide collective of nurses and technicians claiming unpaid overtime wages based on working through their required unpaid lunch breaks pursuant to a company-wide policy. Despite the existence of a written policy requiring that employees be compensated for working during lunch breaks, plaintiff argued that the employer actually mandated employees always clock out for lunch breaks – but that they also remain available to and actually perform work while off-the-clock. At the time of the motion seeking conditional certification, six other individuals had joined the lawsuit.
Ultimately, the court rejected a nationwide collective in applying the Tenth Circuit standard: whether Plaintiff had made substantial allegations that the proposed collective members were subject to a single decision, policy, or plan. Based on the allegations and evidence before it, the court determined that conditional certification was appropriate only in the 9 states in which the employees in the lawsuit (the named plaintiff plus the six who joined the lawsuit) had worked. The court explained that the term “substantial” must carry weight – and with personal knowledge limited to the practices and policies in those 9 states, allegations regarding other locations were not substantial.
This willingness to limit the scope of the collective to only those states where individuals who joined the lawsuit actually had knowledge appears to be in line with the growing trend of heightening the standard for certifying a collective action. With these trends and changes, it may be just a matter of time before the Supreme Court finally weighs in on what the standard should be.
© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in CaliforniaNational Law Review, Volume XIII, Number 212
SUMMARY
To bring a collective competition action in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”), a proposed class representative first has to have their claim certified by the CAT.
The CAT’s approach to certification is therefore an important issue and has been heavily scrutinised.
In this Insight, we look at three accurate judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal where the CAT has stalled the progression of the claims: Gormsen v Meta Platforms, Inc., Justin Gutmann v Apple Inc., and Commercial and Interregional Card Claims.
We consider the factors that led to these decisions, which buck the trend over the last two years of class representatives achieving certification of their claims with relative ease, and set out our thoughts on the key learnings from the judgments.
This year the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) has so far handed down four judgments in cases where the proposed class representative (“PCR”) was asking the CAT to make a collective proceedings order (“CPO”) certifying their proposed claims. The CAT granted a CPO in one of those cases (Justin Gutmann v Govia Thameslink Railway Limited, where certification was not actually contested by the defendants) but has declined to certify in all three claims where the defendants opposed certification: Liza Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta Platforms, Inc., Justin Gutmann v Apple Inc., and Commercial and Interregional Card Claims (the latter being four separate proposed claims – the judgment dealt with certification of all of them).
Background
Prior to these judgments, the CAT had approved 11 CPOs (with some of those CPOs determined in the same judgments) and declined to certify only two (those being rival claims in respect of the European Commission’s FOREX decisions) since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Walter Merricks v Mastercard Incorporated in December 2020. In determining that appeal, the Supreme Court set what was perceived by many as a ‘low bar’ to certification.
However in a judgment handed down in July 2022 upholding certification in Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Limited, the Court of Appeal stressed the importance of the “vigilant gatekeeper role” of the CAT and emphasised the importance of the PCR’s ‘methodology’ as a “blueprint” for how the issues raised by their proposed claims will be determined at trial.
The methodology requirement, which emerged from a decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft (which was endorsed by the Supreme Court in this jurisdiction in Merricks) falls to be considered in addition to the ‘authorisation requirement’ (whether it is just and reasonable for the PCR to act as a representative of the class) and is linked with the ‘eligibility requirement’ (whether the claims raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law such that they are suitable to be brought as collective proceedings). It is significant that - in this still young collective action regime - the methodology or “blueprint” requirement is a creation of the early UK case law (drawing on Canadian case law) and not something found in legislation or the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s collective action rules themselves. This demonstrates the speed at which the regime has evolved and no doubt will continue to do so.
The Pro-Sys test requires the CAT to ask whether the PCR has put forward a methodology that offers a realistic prospect of establishing loss on a class-wide basis if the matter proceeds to trial. It must be grounded in the facts of the particular case and cannot be purely theoretical or hypothetical.
When evaluating a methodology, the CAT must “strike an appropriate balance between the right of the class to seek vindication and the right of defendants not to be subject to a top down claim unless it is a proper one to proceed”, the Court of Appeal held.
The decisions in Gormsen, Gutmann v Apple and CICC followed the Court’s judgment.
The three judgments
Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta
The PCR, Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, was seeking certification of three distinct claims which the PCR alleged individually and/or together amounted to an abuse of dominance:
- first, that Meta exploited its dominant position by imposing terms and conditions on its users which permitted it to collect, share and process their data as a condition of access, all amounting to an unfair requirement;
- secondly, that the bargain between Meta and its users, whereby users permit the collection, etc., of their data in exchange for free access to Facebook, entailed users paying an unfair price; and
- thirdly, that Meta’s other terms and conditions were unfair by virtue of them, for example, being (allegedly) excessively complex, misleading, and mandatory.
The Tribunal raised a number of concerns at the certification hearing regarding the PCR’s methodology. Fundamentally, as the Tribunal went on to hold in the judgment, they considered the methodology to be directed to the quantification of loss for the unfair price abuse case but not directed at all to the two other alleged abuses.
With respect to the unfair pricing abuse case, the Tribunal criticised the PCR’s proposals for assuming the status quo was abusive (thereby adopting the wrong counterfactual) and for failing to articulate a positive case for how to assess whether the price charged by Meta (zero) was unfair.
The Tribunal also held that the PCR had failed to be upfront about apparent changes in their expert’s approach between their first and second expert report (the second report had responded to a number of issues raised by Meta’s expert) which left the Tribunal in the dark as to what the PCR’s positive case and methodology actually were.
The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the PCR had “unequivocally failed the Pro-Sys test” but instead of dismissing the case (which Meta had argued for), the Tribunal invited the PCR to “have another go”. However they stressed that the PCR would first need to carry out a “root-and-branch re-evaluation” of its methodology. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s invitation, the PCR requested and the Tribunal duly ordered a six-month stay of the proceedings.
Gutmann v Apple
This proposed CPO brought by Justin Gutmann, who separately acts as class representative in a number of certified collective proceedings regarding train fares, alleges that Apple committed an abuse of dominance by its conduct in relation to unexpected power offs that affected certain historic iPhone models, and in particular, its introduction in 2017 (by a software update) of a performance management feature limiting power demands. Apple had two grounds for resisting certification: first, that the PCR’s methodology was defective because of a fundamental disconnect between the alleged abuse and the alleged loss their methodology sought to measure; and secondly, that Mr Gutmann was not suitable to act as the PCR.
At the start of the certification hearing the Tribunal raised (of its own initiative pursuant to its gatekeeper role) a number of concerns regarding the absence of a factual basis for the abuse claim. They were particularly concerned about what was underpinning the PCR’s allegation that the performance management feature resulted in the affected iPhone models becoming sub-standard from the perspective of the consumer and inferior to advertised expectations.
Unconvinced by the responses it received from the PCR to its questions on the factual basis for those allegations, the Tribunal floated the idea of adjourning the CPO application and the PCR making an application for limited disclosure from Apple with a view to refining its case.
The PCR agreed to the proposed adjournment so the Tribunal did not go on to determine Apple’s challenges, including with respect to the sufficiency of the methodology. However the methodology requirement looms large for the PCR if and when they are back before the Tribunal seeking certification
Commercial and Interregional Card Claims
The PCR had started four separate collective actions (two against Visa and two against Mastercard) because they sought to bring both opt-in and opt-out claims and on behalf of different classes of merchants. The claims concerned the multilateral interchange fees (“MIFs”) charged under Visa and Mastercards’ card schemes for card transactions made by merchants since 2016.
The class in each proposed claim was confined to those merchants that entered into transactions which incurred certain types of MIFs, specifically interregional and commercial card MIFs. The claims were made on a ‘standalone’ basis (under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) as while there have been prior UK court judgments and European Commission addressing the legality of MIFs, none of them established an infringement in respect of interregional or commercial card MIFs.
In their judgment, the Tribunal criticised the PCR’s methodologies, for both the opt-in and opt-out claims, for being directed exclusively on quantum such that there was no blueprint towards establishing whether the interregional and commercial card MIFs had actually infringed competition law. The Tribunal saw “no sensible reason” for this omission and strongly rebuked the PCR for exhibiting a “casualness” about the methodology requirement, which they considered amounted to a “material and substantive defect” that precluded the grant of a CPO in any of the four proceedings.
The Tribunal identified a number of further serious issues with the PCR’s proposals.
With respect to the opt-out proceedings specifically, the Tribunal held that, contrary to the Tribunal’s rules in relation to eligibility, it is not possible in many cases for individual merchants to be able to determine whether they are a member of the proposed class. They judged this to be a fundamental defect with the design of the class definition. They also raised concerns with the practicality and proportionality of the methodology for resolving pass-on issues.
As regards the opt-in proceedings, the Tribunal identified a further failure by the PCR to provide a sufficient methodology in respect of issues relating to identification of class membership.
In light of these issues (and others), the Tribunal stayed all the proceedings and ordered that the PCR had 8 weeks to notify them as to whether they intend to submit revised proposals. Like in Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta, the Tribunal rejected the proposed defendants’ call for them to dismiss the proposed claims outright. However the Tribunal stressed that some of the defects they had identified, such as the class identification issues in the opt-out proceedings, could not easily be fixed.
Analysis
The Tribunal disposed of the three cases in different ways but in each has allowed the PCR a second bite of the cherry.
As will be clear from the above, the Tribunal was vocal with its criticisms. On the one hand, this will mean the PCRs and their teams have a good sense of the points they will need to try to address if they are to renew their CPO applications.
However the funders backing them have now incurred the sunk costs of the PCRs’ first attempts, which are likely considerable. There is also the issue of the proposed defendants’ costs. Indeed, a costs order has already been made in Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta requiring the PCR to pay 33% of the proposed defendants’ costs of the certification hearing (£650,000) and reserving the issue of the PCR’s liability for the remaining costs.
Those involved will no doubt be wanting to understand quickly whether and if so how the issues that surfaced at these hearings can be rectified and, more broadly, what the strength of the claims are once revised proposals are drawn up, and whether they are capable of meeting the heightened certification standard. If the claims are ultimately refined in a way that negatively impacts on probable quantum then this may materially affect their viability from the perspective of the funders.
Gutmann v Apple is in a different position as it appears that the future of that case now depends first on whether further documents to be provided by Apple, for which the PCR obtained a disclosure order on 28 June 2023 in the face of opposition from Apple, can be used to stand up the claims made.
Standing back, it is clear that the bar for certification has been raised in a way that is likely to be significant not just for the PCRs in these claims but for all pre-certification and future claims.
PCRs and their experts must put forward a holistic methodology and this may necessitate delays in proposed claims being brought and potentially a rise in pre-certification (and possibly pre-action) correspondence as PCRs seek to draw out challenges at an earlier stage with a view to improving upon their initial methodologies. PCRs will likely be considering bringing forward work and – if their funding permits it – committing greater resources in the early stages of a case.
While understandable given the appellate endorsement of the Pro-Sys test and the CAT’s role as vigilant gatekeeper, the strong interventionist approach taken by the Tribunal in all three cases nevertheless demonstrates a renewed vigour to critically assess claims at the outset. This is not a merits analysis but an assessment of whether a claim can proceed sensibly to trial. For example, is the Tribunal satisfied that the proposed form of evidence in the case is capable in principle of proving the allegation that is being made? The goal is to weed out untriable claims at the beginning. Gutmann v Apple in particular demonstrates the propensity of the CAT to look under the bonnet of a proposed claim and stress test the allegations and assumptions underpinning the PCR’s methodology by reference to available factual evidence (or indications as to the availability of factual evidence).
The development of the certification standard we have discussed can be understood as a form of natural rebalancing as the collective actions regime matures. The perception of the low bar set by Merricks no doubt encouraged novel and inherently challenging claims (e.g. Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta and Gutmann v Apple) and potentially gave PCRs the impression that a degree of casualness with their methodologies would be forgiven by the CAT (and this perhaps explains CICC).
Claims already certified are not insulated from all of this though. As the Tribunal has noted in Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd), the PCR’s methodology is not “cast in stone” once a CPO is made and “the CAT has the power at any point to revisit the methodology” and, if appropriate, to “stay, vary or revoke a CPO”. We may not have long to wait before we see the first post-certification CPO challenges.
Read the CAT's judgments:
[View source.]
PR Newswire
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 8, 2023
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 8, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- CLASSAURA reports on April 14, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a class action lawsuit alleging that Sports Research Corporation ("Sports Research" or "Defendant"), the maker of Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia (the "Product"), falsely and deceptively marketed the Product by claiming that it provides "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" benefits. The Plaintiff alleges that the Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia Product label is false and misleading because the Product does not provide "weight management" or "appetite suppression" benefits. The class action seeks to force Sports Research to stop the dissemination of this allegedly false and misleading advertising, and to make other appropriate relief. No trial has occurred yet on Plaintiff's allegations.
The Court has allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" in the United States since April 26, 2015, for personal use and not for resale, and who did not receive a refund or return the Product, excluding Defendant and Defendant's past and present officers, directors, employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its staff.
You have the right to exclude yourself from the class by writing to the attorneys appointed by the Court to represent you. If you do this, you will not receive the benefit of a judgment or settlement of the case, but will preserve your right to sue the Defendant at your own expense.
To read a more detailed version of this notice and to read key documents from the case, please visit the website www.GarciniaClassAction.com. To exclude yourself from the class, please visit the same website or write to the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, 651 Arroyo Drive, San Diego, CA 92103 by September 21, 2023.
Location: Los Angeles, California
Filed by: Classaura LLC
CONTACT: contact@garciniaclassaction.com
SOURCE CLASSAURA
The Oregon Board of Public Safety Standards and Training revoked the public safety licenses of one police, one fire and two correctional officers Thursday following reviews of allegations of misconduct on and off the job.
The board took no action on two other cases and asked a committee to reconsider its recommendation to revoke certification for another officer.
The decisions were made after reviewing recommendations of several professional committees that investigated the allegations.
The Department of Public Safety Safety and Training's policy committees — comprised of current and former field professionals — handled the investigations and made recommendations to the board.
No action on former Eugene officer's license, former Scio rural firefighter
Jannalyn Farley, Eugene Police Department
Eugene Police terminated Farley on Oct. 23, 2019, for allegedly failing to report child abuse, lack of integrity and judgment, failure to report evidence and unsatisfactory performance in arranging CAHOOTS personnel to transport a juvenile who alleged physical abuse by a parent.
The Police Policy Committee review of Eugene Police Department's "investigative reports found elements of dishonesty, misuse of authority, and misconduct," according to meeting transcripts.
The transcripts said Farley was dishonest by omission and misrepresentation in arranging transport for a juvenile, and she "misused her authority while on duty by transporting a juvenile to a facility that was objectionable to the mother, did not tell the mother she was doing this, and did not write these facts in her reports."
Eugene Police declined to comment, according to spokesperson Melinda McLaughlin.
The investigating committee determined Farley's "conduct amounted to incompetence, not character," that she was overwhelmed and the police department understaffed, and that she was not intentionally misleading in her reporting and handling of the situation.
The panel recommended DPSST take no action against Farley's license certification. The board's decision Thursday to take no action means Farley can be employed in law enforcement.
Farley graduated from DPSST Basic Police Academy in March 2017, earning the Governor Victor G. Atiyeh award for most outstanding student in her class.
Zackary Ellis, Scio Rural Fire Department
Linn County Sheriffs arrested Ellis on Aug, 16, 2019, and he was charged with assault and strangulation after a domestic violence dispute against his girlfriend. He was a certified firefighter with the Scio Rural Fire Department at the time.
Ellis later pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault, a Class-A misdemeanor. After 24 months on probation, he applied for DPSST certification, prompting an investigation by the Fire Policy Committee, which recommended no action. The board concurred and Ellis can be recertified.
DPSST also took no action on the licenses another half-dozen other cases in which committees recommended doing nothing.
DPTTS revokes 4 officers' licenses
Scott Aardappel, Columbia River Correctional Institution
The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office fired Aardappel in 2006 after he "inappropriately represented himself as a sworn member of the agency and failed to report the abuse of a child as required by ORS 419B.010."
An investigation by the sheriff's office and the Portland Police Bureau that year found Aardappel "failed to report a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor." He was later arrested and charged with official misconduct in the second degree, a misdemeanor. After pleading guilty, Aardappel was given 12 months probation.
In 2020, Aardappel was hired by Columbia River Correctional Institution in Portland, which triggered a DPSST investigation. According to DPSST documents, "Aardappel has been employed as a public safety professional for four non-consecutive years and has not obtained any DPSST certifications." The Corrections Policy Committee unanimously recommended revocation of his license.
Matt Carballo, Dallas Police Department
Dallas Police terminated Carballo from probationary employment in November 2019 following his Oct. 22, 2019, arrest for driving under the influence and reckless endangerment. Carballo was arrested again Dec. 2, 2019, for driving with a suspended license and failing driver property damage duties.
The Police Policy Committee found Carballo was dishonest when he told Dallas Police that he was not the driver of the vehicle that hit a 7-Eleven, did not take responsibility for his actions and left the scene of an accident.
The committee voted unanimously June 12 to recommend revocation of Carballo's license and that he be ineligible to hold a public safety certification for 10 years. The board Thursday accepted this revocation.
Robert Dennis, Santiam Correctional Institution officer
Dennis resigned Dec. 31, 2019, as a correctional officer at the Santiam Correctional Institute in Salem following an investigation to terminate him on allegations of on-the-job misconduct, including sleeping on the job and leaving the cafeteria during mealtime, which reduces supervision of inmates.
Dennis also allegedly made several comments to subordinates that undermined the safety and supervision abilities of staff.
Information from Santiam Correctional Institute's investigation into Dennis' behavior led the Correction Policy Committee to in May recommend a revocation. The board accepted the revocation.
Gail Freer, formerly of the Siletz Fire District
Greer and a son were charged with poaching two, 8-month-old black bear cubs on private land in October 2022.
Oregon State Police found the cubs dead after an anonymous tip to the Turn in Poachers (TIP) Line. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said both cubs were left to waste and troopers were unable to find their mother. Greer and her son were ordered to pay $15,000 in damages, lost their hunting privileges for three years and were placed on probation for 60 months, ODFW said in May.
“This was a combination of trespassing, poaching and leaving an animal to waste,” said Stop Poaching campaign coordinator Yvonne Shaw. “This demonstrates an attitude of lawlessness while they deprive others of the experience of encountering or hunting these animals during a legal season.”
The Fire Policy Board recommended revocation by a six to one vote. The board revoked Freer's public safety certification on Thursday.
DPSST motioned to reconsider 1 case
Marcus Risteen, Keizer Police Department
Keizer Police in 2018 terminated Risteen, who had been on the job for three months, after he allegedly lied to a Field Training Officer.
Risteen admitted, after a commanding officer said he would check the officer's bodycam footage, that he lied about his actions during a traffic stop.
The Police Policy Committee opened an investigation after Risteen was hired by the Yamhill County Sheriff's Office and scheduled to begin training in May.
The committee said in addition to dishonesty, Risteen's actions at the traffic stop reflected that he ignored instructions on a "very small task."
The DPSST board decided Thursday to send Risteen's case back to the Police Policy Committee for reconsideration after board members said a lifetime revocation was extreme for what they considered to be a "tier-two" offense.
Charles Gearing is a breaking news and public safety reporter. He may be reached at cgearing@gannett.com or at (708) 262-7626.
This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: Public safety board takes no action on former Eugene officer
A state court in Tampa entered class certification in favor of students who paid millions of dollars in fees for services, facilities, resources, activities and events that the University of South Florida failed to provide during four academic semesters during the coronavirus pandemic.
Adam Moskowitz of the Moskowitz Law Firm in Miami represents the plaintiff class representative, doctoral student Valerie Marie Moore, against the defendant, the University of South Florida Board of Trustees. Moskowitz said the Hillsborough Circuit Court order was issued while a case involving a similar issue was pending before the Florida Supreme Court and after judges on nearly 15 other actions ruled differently.
Florida Supreme Court in Tallahassee, FL. (Credit: Felix Mizioznikov/Shutterstock)registerguard.com cannot provide a good user experience to your browser. To use this site and continue to benefit from our journalism and site features, please upgrade to the latest version of Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
- Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
- Edge: https://www.microsoft.com/edge/
- Firefox: https://www.firefox.com/
- Safari: Update to latest version through the App Store
OTTAWA, ON, Aug. 18, 2023 /CNW/ -
Did you receive notice or have reason to believe that you may have experienced a privacy breach between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 with respect to your personal or financial information while using a Government of Canada Online Account (Canada Revenue Agency's "My Account", "My Service Canada" account, or other online government accounts where the account is accessed using a GCKey)?
If you used a Government of Canada Online Account, such as CRA's My Account, a "My Service Canada" account, or various other online government accounts in the past, this Notice of Certification may affect your legal rights. Please read it carefully. You may receive more than one Notice of Certification due to potential unauthorized access to more than one of your Government of Canada online accounts.
A class action lawsuit was initiated by Todd Sweet against the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") and the Government of Canada (collectively, the "Defendant") alleging that the Defendant was negligent in safeguarding the confidential information of Canadians, leading to widespread privacy breaches. The Federal Court of Canada has certified the class action lawsuit against the Defendant. Todd Sweet is the representative Plaintiff.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT?
Among other things, the Plaintiff alleges that the Government of Canada breached class members' privacy by not properly safeguarding confidential personal and financial information electronically housed within various online government portals. The Plaintiff alleges that these inadequate safeguards allowed bad actors to access the online accounts of Canadians absent their consent, view confidential and private details and, in many cases, apply for CERB benefits.
The Plaintiff is asking the Court to order the Government of Canada to pay compensation for, among other things, the alleged breach of privacy and credit monitoring services that may be required to repair the harm caused.
The Government of Canada denies that it did anything wrong. A judge will decide who is right at trial. The date for that trial has not yet been set.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE LAWSUIT?
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of:
All persons whose personal or financial information in their Government of Canada Online Account was disclosed to a third party without authorization between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, excluding Excluded Persons.
"Government of Canada Online Account" means:
a) Canada Revenue Agency account;
b) My Service Canada account; or
c) another Government of Canada online account, where that account is accessed using the Government of Canada Branded Credential Service (GCKey).
"Excluded Persons" means all persons who contacted Murphy Battista LLP about the CRA privacy breach class action, with Federal Court file number T-982-20 prior to June 24, 2021.
If you meet the above-mentioned class definition, you are automatically included in the class action. You do not have to do anything to participate. If you do not want to be part of the lawsuit, you must notify class counsel by mail or e-mail that you want to opt out at the address below by no later than November 27, 2023. If you want to opt out, see below under "What if I do not want to take part?" for more information.
If you are a class member and you don't opt out, you won't be able to make your own claim against the Government of Canada for any specific individual damages you may have suffered. In the class action, damages will be sought for the class as a whole. The judge will decide how any such damages should be divided between class members.
WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE PART?
If you do not want to take part, you have to opt out. If you opt out, the results of the class action lawsuit will not apply to you – good or bad. If you do opt out, you will never be entitled to receive any money through the class action lawsuit but you will still keep your right to sue the Government on your own behalf, subject to any applicable limitation periods. If you still want to opt out, you must either print/scan and complete and send the opt out form, or send your full name, address, birthdate, and a statement that you wish to opt-out by mail or by email to the following address:
Rice Harbut Elliott LLP
Suite #820 – 980 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 0C8
Email: [email protected]
Class members who want to opt out must submit their opt out form to the above-mentioned address or email address by November 27, 2023. Class members who do not submit an opt out form by November 27, 2023 will continue to be a part of the class action.
DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWSUIT?
No. You do not need to pay anything out of your pocket to take part in the lawsuit. The lawyers appointed by the Court to represent the class will only be paid if the claims are successful. If that occurs, the lawyers will request a percentage of the total amount recovered for the class and will ask to be reimbursed for their disbursements. The legal fees will be no greater than 33.33% and must be approved by the Court.
WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
The class is represented by:
Rice Harbut Elliott LLP
Suite #820 – 980 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 0C8
Telephone: 604-682-3771
I WANT MORE INFORMATION
More information on the case is available at https://rhelaw.com/class-action/cra-privacy-breach-class-action-2/ along with the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim, the Order certifying the action, and other Court documents.
You can also register on the website at https://rhelaw.com/class-action/cra-privacy-breach-class-action-2/. If you register, you will receive periodic email updates regarding the action and advising you of any steps that you are required to take.
If you still have questions, you can contact class counsel: Rice Harbut Elliott LLP at (604) 682-3771 and [email protected].
THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA.
SOURCE Canada Revenue Agency
For further information:
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 8, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- CLASSAURA reports on April 14, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a class action lawsuit alleging that Sports Research Corporation ("Sports Research" or "Defendant"), the maker of Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia (the "Product"), falsely and deceptively marketed the Product by claiming that it provides "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" benefits. The Plaintiff alleges that the Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia Product label is false and misleading because the Product does not provide "weight management" or "appetite suppression" benefits. The class action seeks to force Sports Research to stop the dissemination of this allegedly false and misleading advertising, and to make other appropriate relief. No trial has occurred yet on Plaintiff's allegations.
The Court has allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" in the United States since April 26, 2015, for personal use and not for resale, and who did not receive a refund or return the Product, excluding Defendant and Defendant's past and present officers, directors, employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its staff.
You have the right to exclude yourself from the class by writing to the attorneys appointed by the Court to represent you. If you do this, you will not receive the benefit of a judgment or settlement of the case, but will preserve your right to sue the Defendant at your own expense.
To read a more detailed version of this notice and to read key documents from the case, please visit the website www.GarciniaClassAction.com. To exclude yourself from the class, please visit the same website or write to the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, 651 Arroyo Drive, San Diego, CA 92103 by September 21, 2023.
Location: Los Angeles, California
Filed by: Classaura LLC
CONTACT: contact@garciniaclassaction.com
View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/classaura-announces-sports-research-garcinia-cambogia-class-action-certification-301896030.html
SOURCE CLASSAURA
