/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191217.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 17, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 251
Headlines
116 WEST 32 CAFE: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Baten et al. Claim
7-ELEVEN: Lytkine Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALRO STEEL: Amandah Seeks Overtime Wages for Warehouse Employees
AMAG INC: Faces Barnes Suit Over Sale and Marketing of Makena
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Pending
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery to be Completed by June 2020
ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
AVENTURA CAFE: Aguilar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AZZ INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action in Texas
B BRAUN MEDICAL: Emits Dangerous Ethylene Oxide, Abdelaziz Says
BLUE MAGMA: Broughton Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
BLUEWATER ENERGY: Schexsnayder Seeks Overtime Wage for Managers
BOWLMOR LANES: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BREVARD EXTRADITIONS: Langellier Seeks to Certify Class of Agents
BRIGANTINE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sandoval et al. Say
BUGMAN PEST: Jeffcoat Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Final Settlement Approval in Calif. Suit
CATERPILLAR INC: Rodriguez Sues Over Biometric Data Collection
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Gonzalez PI Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CHICAGO, IL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Barlett FLSA Suit
COASTLINE TITLE: Improperly Charged Closing Service Fee, Kruk Says
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Underpays Clinical Counselors, Dulcey Says
CONTRACT TRANSPORT: Magby Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay
CORECIVIC INC: Discovery Ongoing in Grae Class Action
DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Group Alleges Price-Fixing
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Dickey Antitrust Suit Over Market Allocation
DIG INN RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIRECT PROTECT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eggleston Suit Claims
DIRECT RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bittlingmeyer Claims
DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
E & B GUNTHERS: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA
EARTHMED LLC: Mair Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA
EL INDIO BAKERY: Morales Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
EMPIRE ECS: Sosa Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA and NYLL
ENERGY TRANSFER: Trial in Suit over Regency Merger Deal Ongoing
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Jacobowitz Files FCRA in E.D. New York
GEORGE W KUHN: Kickham Hanley Appeals Decision to Mich. App. Ct.
H&R BLOCK: Maurella Antitrust Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
H&R BLOCK: Robinson Anticompetitive Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
ILLINOIS HIGH: Bacon Moves for TRO and Preliminary Injunction
JONATHAN ADLER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
L2T INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Manopla Class Action Ongoing
LHC GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Rosenblatt Suit Pending
MARKOFF LAW: Morales Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
MEDICAL SOCIETY: Lasley Files FCRA Suit in Arizona
MEDICINES COMPANY: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Novartis Sale
MIDLAND CREDIT: Dickens Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Vickers Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
MOD SUPER: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Talavera Says
MOLMO FOOD CO: Laser Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Fraud Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
NAVIGANT CYMETRIX: Wilkins Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NCAA: Adeyemi Sues over Villanova Football Players' Injuries
NCAA: Baugus II Sues over UMTC Football Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: Bundy Sues over ESUP Football Athletes' Injuries
NEW BALANCE: Matzura Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
NEW YORK TRANSIT: Underpays Cashiers, Beckwith et al. Suit Allege
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Matzura Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Cards
NORTHPORT SWEET SHOP: Laser Files Suit under ADA
ONEOK INC: Lindsey Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Costas Class Suit Pending
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Bid in Riche Suit Granted
ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Document Production Sought in Fenwick Suit
OXFORD INDUSTRIES: Sosa Files ADA Class Action in New York
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: $300,000 Accrued to Settle Class Suits
PANDA RESTAURANT: Spargifiore Sues for Not Paying All Wages Owed
PLACER TITLE: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Dismissal in Texas Securities Suit Now Final
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Suits Related to Line 901 Incident Ongoing
POP BY LAMANTIA: Laser Files ADA Class Suit in New York
PRINCETON, NJ: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Saunders Civil Suit
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Amended Complaint Filed in Patel Class Suit
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Former Ride Plus Driver Sues in California
REALGY LLC: Lindenbaum Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached over Dismissal of Merger Suits
SANDBOX ENTERPRISES: Underpays Equipment Operators, Deloach Says
SCHOTT NYC CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEMGROUP CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
SNAK-KING CORP: Haslerig Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SPACE NK USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPARK ENERGY: $7MM Settlement in Albrecht Case Wins Initial Okay
SPARK ENERGY: Bid for Class Cert. in Richardson Suit Due Dec. 23
STATE FARM LIFE: Appeals Ruling in Bally Case to 9th Cir.
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Leon Sues Over Faulty & Dangerous Windshields
SWINGSET & TOY: Taveras Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NJSWHL
T&S RESTAURANT: Mendoza Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TERRA OILFIELD: Class of Operators Certified in Barhight Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Foster Sues Over Faulty Sound System in Lexus Cars
TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Stern Files Suit in New York under FDCPA
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Continues to Defend PERS of Mississippi Class Suit
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit Resumes
TRIVITA INC: Fischer Seeks to End Unsolicited, Pre-Recorded Calls
UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Al Otro Moves to Certify Class of Asylum Seekers
VALUCARE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gedeon Says
VALVOLINE INC: Removes Allen et al. Suit to N.D. Ohio
WOLVERINE WORLD: Consolidated Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing
YALE TILE: Soto Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA and NYLL
*********
116 WEST 32 CAFE: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Baten et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR BATEN; and HECTOR DAVID QUIEJU, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 116
WEST 32 CAFE LLC d/b/a CAFE R; YHUNG GYUNG KANG; and CHONG YE YANG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10873 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-managerial,
non-exempt employees.
116 West 32 Cafe LLC d/b/a Cafe R is engaged in the restaurant
business. The company offers a variety of food cuisine.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39 th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com
7-ELEVEN: Lytkine Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7-Eleven, Inc. The
case is styled as Dennis Lytkine, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11352 (S.D., N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.
7-Eleven Inc. is a Japanese-American international chain of
convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The chain was
founded in 1927 as Tote'm Stores until it was renamed in 1946.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alamo Drafthouse
Cinemas, LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11386
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema is an American cinema chain founded in
1997 in Austin, Texas that is famous for its strict policy of
requiring its audiences to maintain proper cinemagoing
etiquette.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
ALRO STEEL: Amandah Seeks Overtime Wages for Warehouse Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRAN AMANDAH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALRO STEEL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-01607-NJ (E.D.
Wisc., Nov. 1, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages and other damages
for the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid, non-exempt warehouse
employees of the Defendant.
Alro Steel Corporation is a privately owned industrial supplies
distributor. The Company is headquartered in Jackson, Michigan,
but with multiple physical locations in the state of
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
AMAG INC: Faces Barnes Suit Over Sale and Marketing of Makena
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY JO BARNES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMAG, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05088-RK (W.D. Mo., Nov.
1, 2019), arises from the Defendant's marketing, sale, and
manufacturing of the drug Makena, a hydroxyprogesterone caproate,
which was and is marketed as an effective hormonal medication that
reduces the risks for pregnant mothers of giving birth before
term.
Ms. Barnes, a resident of Miller, Lawrence County, Missouri, was
prescribed, purchased, and injected with Makena during the class
period. She paid out-of-pocket for Makena shots that cost over
$1,000 each. She began taking Makena during her 16 week of
pregnancy and delivered her baby preterm at 24 weeks. The baby
died shortly thereafter.
AMAG is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts. AMAG is a publicly traded company and currently
holds the exclusive rights to Makena.
On March 8, 2019, AMAG announced the results of that FDA-mandated
follow-up trial, known as the PROLONG (Progestin's Role in
Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) study ("PROLONG Study"). According
to AMAG, the PROLONG Study's results showed no "statistically
significant difference between the treatment [Makena] and placebo
arms for the co-primary endpoints." The results also showed there
was no significant difference between subjects using Makena and
subjects using placebos on the rate or neonatal mortality or
morbidity.
In other words, the PROLONG Study showed that Makena, which is
exorbitantly-priced and is painful to take, is no more effective
than a placebo, the Plaintiff contends. On October 29, 2019, and
based on the results of the PROLONG Study, the FDA Bone,
Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee recommended that
Makena be withdrawn from the market.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and proposed class
members were injured because they purchased a product, they
otherwise would have purchased, due to the Defendant's falsities,
misrepresentations and/or omissions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
Sean Cooper, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
Sean@PaulLLP.com
Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, is pending.
On October 1, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Thompson Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544.
The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on September 28, 2018 that it was revising its
third quarter revenue guidance due to "an issue with a small
percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer environment."
This case was consolidated with two identical cases styled Davin
Pokoik v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and
Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-3722 and Stephen McGrath v.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J.
Murry.
Mark Naglich was appointed as Lead Plaintiff on the consolidated
matter on January 4, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on March 5,
2019, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on May 6, 2019.
On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its reply brief in further
support of the motion on August 5, 2019.
The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and is pending before
the court.
Applied Optoelectronics said, "The Company disputes the allegations
and intends to vigorously contest the matter."
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery to be Completed by June 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that fact
discovery in the consolidated "Abouzied" and "Ludwig" class action
suit is scheduled to be completed by June 1, 2020.
On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.
The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "we see softer than
expected demand for our 40G solutions with one of our large
customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased
demand we expect in 100G."
A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas.
The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. On
January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on March 6, 2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified
damages and other relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was
denied on March 28, 2019.
The Company disputes the allegations, and intends to continue to
vigorously defend against these claims.
On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding
named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin,
and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier,
"Plaintiffs") to the case. The court granted the motion on May 16,
2019.
The substantive allegations in the Plaintiffs' operative second
amended consolidated class action complaint remain unchanged. On
May 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the case
as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and
Levi & Korsinsky as class counsel.
On July 12, 2019, the Company filed a response in opposition to the
motion for class certification, and on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed their Reply Brief.
The Court has not yet ruled on the pending motion for class
certification.
The case is currently in the discovery phase, and fact discovery is
scheduled to be completed by June 1, 2020.
Applied Optoelectronics said, "At this stage, we are not yet able
to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.
ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance
programs.
The Company is involved in a variety of litigation and legal and
regulatory proceedings relating to its current and past business
operations and, from time to time, it may become involved in other
such actions.
In particular, the Company is a defendant in class actions in a
number of jurisdictions regarding its Lender-placed Insurance
programs. These cases assert a variety of claims under a number of
legal theories.
The plaintiffs typically seek premium refunds and other relief.
The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in these class
actions.
The Company has participated and may participate in settlements on
terms that the Company considers reasonable.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Assurant, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides risk management
solutions for housing and lifestyle markets in North America, Latin
America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company operates through
three segments: Global Housing, Global Lifestyle, and Global
Preneed. The company was formerly known as Fortis, Inc. and changed
its name to Assurant, Inc. in February 2004. Assurant, Inc. was
founded in 1892 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
AVENTURA CAFE: Aguilar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE AGUILAR v. AVENTURA CAFE CORP., a Florida Corporation,
and ALEKSANDAR REDIC, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-24546-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated employees at the Defendants'
restaurant seeking to recover compensation and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Aguilar, a former employee of the Defendants, alleges that
during her employment, the Defendants claimed a 'tip-credit' for
her and others, and paid these employees below the statutorily
required minimum wage under the FLSA. She contends that the
Defendants failed to comply with the 'tip-credit' requirements
pursuant to the FLSA by including floor supervisors and cashiers as
'tipped' employees that received a portion of her tips.
The Defendants operate a restaurant in Miami, Florida, under the
name Aventura Cafe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Cozad, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
Sunrise, FL 33323
Telephone: (954) 763-5722
Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
E-mail: david@levylevylaw.com
AZZ INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas captioned Atayi v. AZZ Inc., et al.,
(Case No. 4:19-cv-00928), on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired AZZ Inc. (NYSE: AZZ) ("AZZ" or the
"Company") securities between July 3, 2018 and October 8, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from November
5, 2019, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.
On May 17, 2019, after the market closed, AZZ disclosed a material
weakness in its internal control over financial reporting related
to preparation and review of revenue reconciliations after adopting
a new revenue recognition standard.
On May 20, 2019, before the market opened, AZZ announced that it
had replaced its independent auditor, BDO US, LLP, with Grant
Thornton LLP.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.21, nearly 3%, to
close at $43.35 per share on May 20, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.
On October 8, 2019, AZZ delayed its second quarter 2020 financial
results "to allow the Company additional time to complete the
review of the Form 10-Q for its fiscal year 2020 second quarter
ended August 31, 2019."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.89, nearly 14%, to
close at $37.12 per share on October 8, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.
On October 25, 2019, AZZ announced that its Chief Accounting
Officer "will leave the Company effective October 31, 2019."
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting were not effective; (2) that the Company improperly
implemented ASC 606 which resulted in improper revenue
reconciliations; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
If you purchased AZZ securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from November 5, 2019, the
date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
B BRAUN MEDICAL: Emits Dangerous Ethylene Oxide, Abdelaziz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mourad Abdelaziz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., Case No. 191201504
(Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Dec. 10, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants for damages resulting from its dangerous and
reckless emission of Ethylene Oxide.
Ethylene Oxide is a powerful cancer-causing gas. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology
Program, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) all classify Ethylene Oxide as
a known human carcinogen.
The Defendant's manufacturing facility in Allentown utilizes large
volumes of Ethylene Oxide gas to sterilize medical equipment. This
toxic gas is then released into the atmosphere by the Defendant in
both controlled and uncontrolled releases.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
lived within the vicinity of the Defendant's Allentown plant, and
have been exposed to large volumes of toxic, cancer-causing
Ethylene Oxide gas. Although Ethylene Oxide is odorless and
colorless, and the Plaintiff and Class Members can neither see nor
smell the gas, it is in the air they breathe and all around them.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have been inhaling and consuming
large amounts of Ethylene Oxide when they brush their teeth, pet
their dogs, talk with their children about their day at school, and
throughout their daily lives.
As a result of their exposure to Ethylene Oxide emitted by the
Defendant, the Plaintiff and Class Members acquired some of the
highest cancer risks in the United States, says the complaint. The
Defendant's irresponsible and reckless conduct, and the pollution
resulting therefrom, has necessitated that the Plaintiff and Class
Members obtain medical monitoring to mitigate their increased risk
of developing cancer, including screening, monitoring, and checking
to detect any abnormalities that may be indicative of cancer, and
to ensure that latent disease processes can be immediately
identified and aggressively treated.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania and lives in Lehigh
County, who has been exposed to, and inhaled, high levels of
Ethylene Oxide gas.
B. Braun designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, marketed, sold
and/or distributed various medical devices throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq.
Hannah Molitoris, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 1401
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 446-9795
Fax: (215) 446-9799
Email: cboylan@forthepeople.com
hmolitoris@forthepeople.com
BLUE MAGMA: Broughton Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
----------------------------------------------------
TED BROUGHTON, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE MAGMA RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 8:19-cv-02906-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Blue Magma Residential, LLC operates as a real estate owner and
developer. The Company constructs, manages, and transforms
residential properties with amenities like swimming pools, club
houses, state-of-art business centers, fitness centers, and
washers. Blue Magma Residential serves customers in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
BLUEWATER ENERGY: Schexsnayder Seeks Overtime Wage for Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SCHEXSNAYDER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. BLUEWATER ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01801 (D. Conn., Nov. 13, 2019), alleges that Bluewater
Energy failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers like him
overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Connecticut state law.
Mr. Schexsnayder contends that Bluewater pays him and other workers
like him the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those
in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Mr. Schexsnayder was an employee of Bluewater hired in late 2016
and left Bluewater's employment in early 2018. He was an Electrical
Project Manager for Bluewater.
Bluewater is a professional and dependable technical services
company to support the growing needs in the power, industrial, and
oil/gas marketplace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Hay, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
BOWLMOR LANES: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowlmor Lanes LLC.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bowlmor Lanes LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11387 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Bowlmor Lanes is the upscale brand of ten-pin bowling and
entertainment centers operated by Bowlero Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
BREVARD EXTRADITIONS: Langellier Seeks to Certify Class of Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN LANGELLIER, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BREVARD EXTRADITIONS INC., d/b/a U.S. PRISONER TRANSPORT, Case No.
6:19-cv-01316-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), seeks conditional certification
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Mr. Langellier asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective
consisting of:
"All current and former Extradition Agents who worked for
Defendant any time during the last three years within the
United States who were not paid minimum wage for all hours
worked during any workweek."
The proposed class members are non-exempt "Extradition Agents," who
worked for the Defendant in Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas,
and Georgia.
The lawsuit is a collective action seeking to enforce the minimum
wage provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant did not pay him and other workers minimum wage for all
hours they worked. Instead, the Defendant paid only a flat daily
rate, along with a per diem, to them regardless of how many hours
they actually worked. This resulted in them receiving subminimum
wage compensation for many weeks worked during the last three
years.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to:
-- direct the Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable
format, to his counsel within 14 days of the Order granting
this Motion a list containing the full names, last known
mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses
of putative class members;
-- authorize the counsel to send initial notice to all
individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendant's counsel by first-class mail;
-- direct the Defendant to post at all of its business
locations located a copy of the initial notice;
-- authorize the counsel to send a follow-up notice to all
individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the
close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt
in to the instant action; and
-- provide all individuals whose names appear on the list
produced by the Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from
the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent
to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
BRIGANTINE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sandoval et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER SANDOVAL; ARLYN ANGULO; BRIAN MEDIGOVICH; JASON CASILLAS;
JOHNNY ESPINOZA; LUKE FRANCIS JOHNSON; MISAEL ROSALEZ; SALVADOR
VALADEZ; SILVIA ALEGRIA; and YOLANDA FLORES LANDA; individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE
BRIGANTINE, INC.; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00063186-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Nov. 26,
2019) seek to recover back pay, lost benefits, pre-judgment
interest, and attorney fees.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employees.
The Brigantine owns and operates restaurants. The Company offers
prepared foods, snacks, and drinks for on-premises and off-premises
consumption. The Brigantine serves customers in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented:
Frank S. Clowney III, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANK S. CLOWVNEY III
600 B Street, Suite 2300
San Diego, CA 92101-4598
Telephone: (619) 557-0458
Facsimile: (619) 557-0482
E-mail: worklaw@sbcglobal.net
BUGMAN PEST: Jeffcoat Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Jeffcoat, Zachary Cates, individually and on behalf of others
similarly-situated v. Bugman Pest Elimination, Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-03453-JMC (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2019), is brought for unpaid
wages, for unpaid overtime compensation, for not paying the
Plaintiffs the federally-mandated minimum wage, for liquidated
damages, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that they regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week but did not receive overtime pay as required by the
FLSA. The Defendant paid all time, including that in excess of
forty hours in a work-week, by paying 18% of what the Plaintiffs
billed daily. On some occasions during the relevant limitations
period, the Plaintiffs' pay did not meet the federally-mandated
minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Pest Control
Technicians.
Bugman Pest Elimination, Inc. is a domestic corporation that is
organized and operates under the laws of the State of South
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
GAFFNEYLEWIS, LLC
3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
Columbia, SC 29204
Phone: (803) 790-8838
Facsimile: (803) 790-8841
Email: agaffney@gaffneylewis.com
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Final Settlement Approval in Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties
in the consolidated California class action suit are awaiting the
court's final approval of their settlement.
Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
under the following captions: David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the
"Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine,
et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on November 25, 2015.
The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013 and
November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC
Engineering (BPC) and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to
fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the Company. The
Kinney Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial
statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this
situation and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that
the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting.
The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public statements and
accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by the individual defendants.
The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are
substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both
complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.
On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff. On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the motions
to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.
On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations
and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint
was filed in the consolidated action. The putative class period in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to November 5,
2015.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 17, 2016. On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an
order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety with
leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28,
2017. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying
Defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2018, Defendants filed
an answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
On May 17, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order setting a
trial date of March 17, 2020. On June 26, 2018, the Court entered
an order vacating all deadlines through the end of October 2018 and
temporarily staying formal discovery and other proceedings to allow
the parties time to conduct a mediation.
The parties participated in mediation on September 24, 2018, which
did not result in a settlement. On November 16, 2018, after further
settlement discussions, the parties advised the Court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the action in its
entirety.
The agreement in principle is subject to several conditions,
including the execution of a stipulation of settlement that is
satisfactory to all parties, and preliminary and final approval
from the court, among other things.
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement on April 12, 2019, and filed supplementary
declarations in support of the motion on May 2, 2019. Preliminary
approval of the settlement was granted on May 17, 2019, with a
final settlement approval hearing set for November 15, 2019.
Capstone said, "If the settlement is finalized and approved by the
Court, the Company's insurance carrier will fund the settlement
amount. The Company has not recorded any liability as of September
30, 2019 since any potential loss is not considered material as its
insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount."
Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications worldwide. Capstone
Turbine Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Van
Nuys, California.
CATERPILLAR INC: Rodriguez Sues Over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNASTASIA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CATERPILLAR INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, and VONACHEN SERVICES INC., an Illinois corporation,
Respondent in Discovery, Case No. 2019CH12773 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., Nov. 1, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by using a biometric
time-tracking system that collects, stores and uses employees'
fingerprints.
Caterpillar Inc. is a Delaware corporation operating a
manufacturing facility in Pontiac, Illinois.
Since 2008, it has been illegal in Illinois to collect an
individual's biometric information or identifiers, such as a
fingerprint, voiceprint, or faceprint, without the individual's
informed, written consent. Despite the substantial privacy risks
created by the collection and storage of biometric data, and the
decade-old prohibition on collecting and retaining biometric data
in Illinois without informed consent, Caterpillar uses a biometric
time-tracking system that requires workers at one of its locations
to use their fingerprints as a means of authentication, the
Plaintiff, a former employee, contends.
Vonachen Services Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws of
the State of Illinois, with its headquarters and principal place of
business in Peoria, Illinois. Vonachen is contracted by the
Defendant to provide janitorial services, and subjects its staff to
the Defendant's time tracking system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
E-mail: amz@kellerlenkner.com
nl@kellerlenkner.com
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Gonzalez PI Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Reno Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central Transport LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12998
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec.
12, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-08142.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Central Transport provides transportation services. The Company
offers cross-docking, truckloading, and supply chain services.
Central Transport serves customers in the North America, Canada,
and Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron M Zigler, Esq.
Alexios James Dravillas, Esq.
Keller Lenkner LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-5222
Email: amz@kellerlenkner.com
ajd@kellerlenkner.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Anne E. Larson, Esq.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
155 North Wacker, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 558-1253
Email: anne.larson@ogletreedeakins.com
CHICAGO, IL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Barlett FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert Bartlett and Patrick Leyden filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Robert Bartlett, et
al. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 1:14-cv-07225, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 29, 2019, District
Judge Charles P. Kocoras (i) granted the City's motion for summary
judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.
Plaintiffs Bartlett and Leyden are Chicago Police Department
("CPD") officers who were both assigned to the CPD's Special
Weapons and Tactics ("SWAT") Unit when it became a full-time unit
in 2005. Bartlett was assigned to the SWAT Unit until April 2017.
He is currently on leave from the CPD while performing duties as a
field representative for The Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago
Lodge No. 7 ("FOP"), the union that represents CPD officers below
the rank of sergeant. Leyden remains assigned to the SWAT Unit.
In addition to Bartlett and Leyden, the Plaintiffs' FLSA certified
collective class includes 76 opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23
certified class consists of 102 class members. The Plaintiffs
currently work or formerly worked as operational members of the
SWAT Unit in the rank of police officer.
The Plaintiffs filed their third amended class action complaint on
Nov. 3, 2017, claiming that they should be compensated for the time
required to transport, load/unload, and store their gear between
their vehicles and their residences. They seek relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I); the Illinois Wage
Payment Collection Act ("IWPCA"), as amended, (Count II); and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") (Count III) for unpaid
compensation unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
The appellate case is captioned as Robert Bartlett, et al. v. City
of Chicago, Case No. 19-3183, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT BARTLETT, Individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated SWAT team members on the Chicago Police
Department; and PATRICK LEYDEN are represented by:
Paul Durbin Geiger, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. GEIGER
540 W. Frontage Road, Suite 3020
Northfield, IL 60093
Telephone: (773) 410-0841
Defendant-Appellee CITY OF CHICAGO is represented by:
Jennifer A. Naber, Esq.
LANER MUCHIN, LTD.
515 N. State Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 467-9800
E-mail: jnaber@lanermuchin.com
COASTLINE TITLE: Improperly Charged Closing Service Fee, Kruk Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONI KRUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COASTLINE TITLE OF PINELLAS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 99475190 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Nov. 26, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant arising from closing fees improperly
charged and collected by the Defendant from buyers of real estate
transactions .
According to the complaint, at the closing of the transaction, the
Defendant prepared a closing settlement disclosure statement
detailing the receipts and disbursements made on the Plaintiff's
account, including the allocation of the Defendant's closing
service fee. As indicated in the Closing Statement, a closing
service fee in the amount of $300 was improperly charged by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff. This amount was charged to the
Plaintiff account despite the explicit language in the contract
stating that the "Seller shall pay for Owner's Policy and Charges"
which, by definition included the Defendant's closing services
fee.
Coastline Title Of Pinellas, LLC, provides real estate brokerage
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33328
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
- and –
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
- and –
Richard B. Feinberg, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313
Clearwater, FL 33755
Telephone: (727) 231-6400
E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Underpays Clinical Counselors, Dulcey Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GILDA DULCEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24860 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
The Plaintiff Dulcey is employed by the Defendant as clinical
counselor.
Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. provides workforce health care
services. The Company offers onsite health centers, nationwide
medical surveillance, pharmacy services, rapid-response medical
readiness teams, and fitness-for-duty exams. CHSi caters its
services in the States of Virginia and Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
debbie@fgbolaw.com
CONTRACT TRANSPORT: Magby Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Magby, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
CONTRACT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02857-SO (N.D.
Ohio, Dec. 10, 2019), challenges the Defendant's policies and
practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a driver,
alleges that she and other similarly situated employees are not
being paid for all hours worked. She adds that they were not paid
overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of
40 each workweek, in violation of the FLSA.
The Defendant is a passenger transportation company that operates
throughout Northeast Ohio. The Defendant requires its drivers to
remain with their vehicles, and drivers remain subject to the
Defendant's direction during this time.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
CORECIVIC INC: Discovery Ongoing in Grae Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.
Following the release of the August 18, 2016 U.S. Department of
Justice memorandum, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, or the District Court, captioned Grae v.
Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired the company's securities
between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016.
In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the
company's public statements were false and/or misleading regarding
the purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors
cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, the company's stock
price was artificially inflated.
The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on
August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share
price of our stock to decline, thereby causing harm to the putative
class of shareholders.
On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the company's
motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2019, the District Court certified
the class proposed by the plaintiff.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the
company's appeal of the class certification order on August 23,
2019.
The case is currently in the fact discovery phase of litigation.
CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based
in Nashville, Tennessee.
DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Group Alleges Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Delta Dental Insurance Company and various
affiliated entities alleges that the Defendants have engaged in the
conspiracy of allocating territories of operation within the U.S.
The Defendants are independent companies who have agreed with each
other to allocate markets into geographic areas in which they agree
not to compete. The contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per
se violation of the Sherman Act, the lawsuit contends. Its harm is
reflected in suppression of compensation below levels that would
prevail in a competitive marketplace to dentists who are members of
the Delta Dental provider network, as well as in the value and
choices of dental care available to patients who are subscribers to
the dental insurance provided by Delta Dental.
The case is captioned as, AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, PEPPY
DENTAL, and JANIS B. MORIARTY, DMD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; DELTACARE USA; DELTA USA INC.; DDPA; DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY ALABAMA; DELTA DENTAL OF ALASKA; DELTA DENTAL OF
ARIZONA; DELTA DENTAL OF ARKANSAS; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA;
DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF CONNECTICUT; DELTA DENTAL
OF DELAWARE; DELTA DENTAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; DELTA DENTAL
OF FLORIDA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–GEORGIA; HAWAII DENTAL
SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF IDAHO; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA
DENTAL OF INDIANA; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS;
DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY–LOUISIANA; DELTA DENTAL OF MARYLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF
MASSACHUSETTS; DELTA DENTAL OF MICHIGAN; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA;
DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–MISSISSIPPI; DELTA DENTAL OF
MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–MONTANA; DELTA DENTAL OF
NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–NEVADA; DELTA DENTAL OF
NEW JERSEY; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW MEXICO; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK;
DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH DAKOTA;
NORTHEAST DELTA DENTAL (OF MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT); DELTA
DENTAL OF OHIO; DELTA DENTAL OF OKLAHOMA; DELTA DENTAL OF OREGON;
DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO; DELTA
DENTAL OF RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DELTA
DENTAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF TENNESSEE; DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY–TEXAS; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–UTAH;
DELTA DENTAL OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL
OF WEST VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN; AND DELTA DENTAL OF
WYOMING; DENTEGRA GROUP. INC.; DENTEGRA INSURANCE CO.; AND
RENAISSANCE HEALTH SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07808 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 26, 2019).
Delta Dental Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life, health, dental, and disability insurance
services. Delta Dental Insurance Company serves customers in the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
Kristofer S. Riddle, Esq.
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 899-9090
Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
E-mail: rclifford@cliffordlaw.com
smm@cliffordlaw.com
ksr@cliffordlaw.com
- and -
Scott Martin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Megan E. Jones, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 633-4980
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
mjones@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1900 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
sbojedla@hausfeld.com
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Dickey Antitrust Suit Over Market Allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. William Dickey, DMD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Delta Dental Insurance Company, et al., Case
No. 3:19-cv-00910-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., Dec. 11, 2019), is brought
on behalf of dental providers to enjoin an ongoing conspiracy
between and among individual plans and their association, the Delta
Dental Plans Association, to allocate markets and geographic
territories in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act and
Mississippi law.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Insurance Company; DeltaCare USA;
Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental Plans Association; Delta Dental
Insurance Company Alabama; Delta Dental of Alaska; Delta Dental of
Arizona; Delta Dental of Arkansas; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental
of Delaware; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Delta Dental
of Florida; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Georgia; Hawaii Dental
Service; Delta Dental of Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta
Dental of Indiana; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas;
Delta Dental of Kentucky; Delta Dental Insurance
Company–Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland; Delta Dental of
Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota;
Delta Dental Insurance Company-Mississippi; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Montana; Delta Dental of
Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Nevada; Delta Dental of
New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New York;
Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota;
Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta
Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon;
Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta
Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Carolina; Delta
Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee; Delta Dental
Insurance Company-Texas; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Utah; Delta
Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental of
West Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental of
Wyoming.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have entered into a
horizontal market allocation agreement that is per se illegal under
the antitrust laws. The Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice defines per se illegal market division as follows: "Market
division or allocation schemes are agreements in which competitors
divide markets among themselves." In such schemes, competing firms
allocate specific customers or types of customers, products, or
territories among themselves.
The Defendant Plans are potential competitors, who have agreed to
allocate exclusive geographic markets, the Plaintiff avers. The
Defendant Plans formalized and enforced this territorial market
allocation scheme by means of the license agreements issued by
Defendant DDPA. These license agreements limit and restrict the
ability of Defendant Plans to compete outside of their respective
territorial markets.
The individual Plans have agreed not to compete against one another
in their allocated market territories, which insulates individual
Plans from competition in those areas, according to the complaint.
This entrenches and perpetuates the dominant market position that
each of them has historically enjoyed in their allocated market
territories. Their market power is the direct result of the illegal
conspiracy to divide and allocate markets unlawfully. These
restrictions, which have been followed by individual Plans, prevent
competition that would otherwise occur among the Plans. The Plans
have recognized that the brand restrictions curtail opportunities
for growth in underserved regions of other states.
The harm from the Defendants' market allocation is reflected in
suppression of compensation below levels that would prevail in a
competitive marketplace to dental providers who are members of the
Delta Dental provider network. As a result of Defendants'
agreed-upon territorial restraints, Delta Dental's compensation to
dental service providers was collusively and unlawfully suppressed
below the level that would prevail in a competitive marketplace,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff William Dickey, DMD, is a dental services provider and a
citizen of the state of Mississippi, who provided dental goods and
services to consumers insured by Delta Dental pursuant to his
in-network contract with the Delta Dental Insurance Company.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are predominately not-for-profit
entities that provide insurance plans for dental goods and services
in their respective states or multi-state areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. McGartland
Lee Rikard McGartland
McGARTLAND LAW FIRM, PLLC
University Centre I, Suite 500
1300 South University Drive
Fort Worth, TX 76107
Phone: (817) 332-9300
Facsimile: (817) 332-9301
Email: mike@mcgartland.com
lee@mcgartland.com
DIG INN RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dig Inn Restaurant
Group LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dig
Inn Restaurant Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11374
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Dig Inn Restaurant Group LLC owns and operates a chain of
restaurants. The Company offers roasted chicken, avocado, brown
rice, and cattle beans, as well as provides catering services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
DIRECT PROTECT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eggleston Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY EGGLESTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT PROTECT SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10071 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.
Direct Protect Security & Surveillance, Inc. provides home security
systems. The Company offers panic alarm, global positioning and
vehicle tracking systems, entry point sensors, and detectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq.
THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park East, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 550-5221
Facsimile: (310) 496-2840
E-mail: aaron@aftergoodesq.com
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
DIRECT RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bittlingmeyer Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC; and
ELLE GUSMAN, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-62909 (S.D. Fla., Nov.
22, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.
Direct Recovery Services, LLC provides debt collection services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
Fax: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drybar Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Drybar Holdings LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11389 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Drybar is a California-based chain of salons that solely provides a
hair styling service known as blowouts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
E & B GUNTHERS: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
E & B Gunthers LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda
Laser and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
E & B Gunthers LLC and Guiseppe Cavagnaro, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-06937 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019).
E & B Gunthers LLC is a law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 695-0052
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
EARTHMED LLC: Mair Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Mair, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. EarthMed, LLC., Case No. 1:19-cv-08107 (N.D. Ill., Dec.
11, 2019), is brought against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.
Ms. Mair alleges that she worked hours of work beyond 40, but for
which the Defendant failed to pay overtime at the proper and
correct rate of pay. The Plaintiff was not paid any overtime wages
at any time as the Defendant claimed to be exempt from paying
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff also brings a claim for theft of her tips. The
Defendant takes from the Plaintiff tips paid by the customers,
intended to be retained by staff, for their own profits, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Illinois and a former
employee of the Defendant corporation.
Earth Med is a corporation or business which does business in
Illinois. The Company is licensed by the State of Illinois as a
medical cannabis dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Phone: 630-464-9675
Facsimile 630-206-0889
Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com
EL INDIO BAKERY: Morales Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Amalia Mazo Morales, and all others similarly situated v. EL
INDIO BAKERY AND CAFETERIA CORP., a Florida Corporation and HEIDI
PEREZ CASTANEDA, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-25101-JAL (Fla.
Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Dec. 11, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff asserts she worked 40 overtime hours per week for the
Defendant but was not paid the extra half time rate for each hour
worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as Defendants
knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed
to investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in
accordance with the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food preparer and
distributor from March 14, 2018, through July 14, 2019.
The Defendant is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within the Miami-Dade County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa Kuhlman, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Phone: (305) 865-6766
Fax: (305) 865-7167
EMPIRE ECS: Sosa Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA and NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN SOSA and JOSE SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EMPIRE ECS LLC, and MATTHEW LIO,
and DOMINICK LIO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-10513 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks to recover
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding
$100,000 for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed from March 2016 to October 2019 by
Defendants at Empire ECS LLC, located at 27 Saint Charles Street,
in Thornwood, New York. The Plaintiffs' primary duties were as a
office key-holder, construction worker, demolition worker, and
cleaner, while performing other miscellaneous duties.
The Plaintiffs say they worked approximately 50 hours or more per
week during their employment. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants willfully failed to post in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements as required by both the NYLL and the
FLSA.
Empire ECS is in general construction business. Matthew Lio owns
and operates Empire ECS. Dominick Lio has power over payroll
decisions of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: 718 263 9591
ENERGY TRANSFER: Trial in Suit over Regency Merger Deal Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is ongoing in the class action suit related to the merger
deal between Regency Energy Partners LP and Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P., ETO said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.
Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal
courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the
Regency-ETO merger. All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits
have been dismissed.
On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on behalf of
Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC,
Energy Transfer LP (ET), ETO, Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P.
(ETP GP), and the members of Regency's board of directors
("Defendants").
The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's
conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger
was not approved in good faith or fair to Regency.
On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman
appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed
the judgment of the Court of Chancery.
On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action
Complaint. The defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017.
On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP
LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency Defendants").
On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to
Plaintiff's Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 26,
2019, the Court of Chancery granted Dieckman's unopposed motion for
class certification.
On May 14, 2019, the Regency Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing that Dieckman's claims fail because the Regency
Defendants relied on the advice of their financial advisor in
approving the Regency Merger.
Also on May 14, 2019, Dieckman filed a motion for partial summary
judgment arguing, among other things, that Regency's conflicts
committee was not properly formed.
On October 29, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff's summary judgment
motion, holding that Regency failed (1) to form a valid conflicts
committee such that Regency failed to satisfy the Special Approval
safe harbor in connection with the merger, and (2) to issue a proxy
that was not materially misleading such that Regency failed to
satisfy the Unitholder Approval safe harbor in connection with the
merger.
The court denied Defendants' summary judgment motion which argued
that Defendants approved the merger in good faith because they
relied upon the fairness opinion of an investment bank. The court
held that fact questions existed regarding whether Defendants
actually relied upon the fairness opinion given by JP Morgan when
voting in favor of the merger. Trial is currently set for December
10-16, 2019.
Energy Transfer said, "The Regency Defendants cannot predict the
outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might
be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency
Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency
Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it and any others that may
be filed in connection with the Regency Merger."
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. engages in the natural gas
midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. in October 2018. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.
was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Jacobowitz Files FCRA in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Shimon Jacobowitz, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06966 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
credit information to financial institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
GEORGE W KUHN: Kickham Hanley Appeals Decision to Mich. App. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kickham Hanley PLLC Trustee filed an appeal from a court
ruling in its lawsuit styled KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC v. GEORGE W KUHN
DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Case No. 2019-172077-CZ, in the Oakland Circuit
Court.
The appellate case is captioned as KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC v. GEORGE W
KUHN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Case No. 351317, in the Michigan Court of
Appeals.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC TRUSTEE is represented by:
Gregory D. Hanley, Esq.
KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC
300 Balmoral Centre
32121 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48073-0943
Telephone: (248) 544-1500
Facsimile: (248) 544-1501
E-mail: ghanley@kickhamhanley.com
Defendant-Appellee GEORGE W KUHN DRAINAGE DISTRICT is represented
by:
Peter H. Webster, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 300
Troy, MI 48084-3312
Telephone: (248) 433-7513
E-mail: pwebster@dickinsonwright.com
H&R BLOCK: Maurella Antitrust Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Carmen J. Maurella, III, on
behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
H&R Block Inc., and H&R Block Tax Services LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07435 (Filed Nov. 8, 2018), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas
City) on Nov. 13, 2019.
The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00909-ODS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge District Judge Ortrie D. Smith.
The case is an antitrust class action brought by and on behalf of
individuals, who work or have worked for the Defendants, a tax
preparation services company and franchisor.
The Plaintiff brings the action to recover damages, including
treble damages and other appropriate relief.
H&R Block, Inc., is the "largest consumer tax services provider" in
the United States and provides tax preparation and assistance
services at physical offices, online, and via desktop and mobile
applications. The Defendants provide in-person tax preparation
services at approximately 10,000 offices in the United States. As
of 2018, approximately one-third are franchise locations, while
approximately 6,700 U.S. offices are corporate-owned.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Jiamin Chen, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
E-mail: swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
jchen@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
E-mail: rick@saveri.com
- and -
Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W. Monroe Street No. 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: mrm@wexlerwallace.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael I. Rothstein, Esq.
TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN, LLC
The Rookery Building
209 South LaSalle Street, Seventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 762-9450
E-mail: mrothstein@tdrlawfirm.com
- and -
David J. Lender, Esq.
Eric Shaun Hochstadt, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8153
E-mail: david.lender@weil.com
eric.hochstadt@weil.com
- and -
Stacey R. Gilman, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP-KCMO
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
E-mail: sgilman@berkowitzoliver.com
- and -
Timothy A. Hudson, Esq.
Uriel B. Abt, Esq.
TABET DIVITO ROTHSTEIN
209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 762-9450
E-mail: thudson@tdrlawfirm.com
uabt@tdrlawfirm.com
H&R BLOCK: Robinson Anticompetitive Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Deborah Robinson, Plaintiff v.
H&R Block Inc. and H&R Block Tax Services LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00134 (Filed Jan. 7, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on
Nov 13, 2019.
The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00912-HFS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. District Judge Howard F. Sachs.
The case challenges Defendants' anticompetitive No Poach agreements
for corporate and franchise employees in violation of Sections 1
and 3 of the Sherman Act.
H&R Block, Inc. is an American tax preparation company. Among other
tax preparation services, H&R Block, Inc. provides in-person tax
preparation assistance and services at approximately 10,000 offices
across the United States as well as outside the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Albert, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
- and -
Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
THE KHOWAJA LAW, LLC
70 East Lake St., Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 356-3200
E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David J. Lender, Esq.
Eric Shaun Hochstadt, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8153
E-mail: david.lender@weil.com
eric.hochstadt@weil.com
- and -
Michael I. Rothstein, Esq.
Uriel B. Abt, Esq.
TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN, LLC
The Rookery Building
209 South LaSalle Street, Seventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 762-9450
E-mail: mrothstein@tdrlawfirm.com
uabt@tdrlawfirm.com
ILLINOIS HIGH: Bacon Moves for TRO and Preliminary Injunction
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Charles R. Bacon on behalf of I.B., Joseph
Maida on behalf of A.M., John D. DeSantis on behalf of J.R.D.,
Harold Hou on behalf of A.H., Craig Benes on behalf of L.B., Lisa
Niser on behalf of A.N., Michele Hakimian on behalf of E.S., Carol
Leonard on behalf of D.L., Alexander San Juan on behalf of R.S.,
Kristina Lagges on behalf of M.L., George Menninger on behalf of
A.M., Roman Reyes on behalf of J.R., Royce Lee on behalf of K.L.,
and Emad Rizkon behalf of A.R. (collectively hereinafter referred
to as, "JCPXC - Team XI"), on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated CPS student-athletes v. ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2019CH12760 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 1,
2019), the Plaintiffs move for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction against the IHSA.
The case involves an immediate harm to the Plaintiffs, also known
as the Jones College Prep Boys Cross Country Team ("JCXP-XC Team
XI"), and similarly situated Chicago Public Schools
student-athletes. Defendant IHSA is preventing the Plaintiffs, as
well as other similarly situated CPS student-athletes from
competing at the IHSA Sectional Cross Country Meet that was
scheduled for Nov. 2, 2019.
The main basis for denying the Plaintiffs' previous motion for a
TRO has dissipated--the Chicago teachers' strike is over, the
Plaintiffs contend.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin A. Sterling, Esq.
Laura Newcomer Cohen, Esq.
THE STERLING LAW OFFICE LLC
411 North LaSalle Street, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 670-9744
E-mail: kevin@thesterlinglaw.com
laura@thesterlinglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David J. Bressler, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (630) 577-2824
E-mail: DBressler@dykema.com
JONATHAN ADLER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jonathan Adler
Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Jonathan Adler Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11385
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Jonathan Adler Enterprises, LLC designs, manufactures, and markets
home accessories. The Company offers pottery, decor and pillows,
lighting, bed and bath, and furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
L2T INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L2T, Inc. The case is
styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L2T, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11377 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
L2t, Inc is a privately held company in Manhattan Beach, CA and is
a Branch business, categorized under Boutiques.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Manopla Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Daniel Manopla v.
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and
Pablo Lapuerta, M.D.
On January 28, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel
Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D. was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
A first amended complaint was filed on July 30, 2019 and Lexicon
filed a motion to dismiss such first amended complaint on September
30, 2019. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
from March 11, 2016 through July 29, 2019.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning data from its Phase 3
clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes patients and
the prospects of FDA approval of sotagliflozin for the treatment of
type 1 diabetes.
The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical
products. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.
LHC GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Rosenblatt Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and motion to strike
the affidavit attached to the consolidated complaint remain
pending.
On January 18, 2018, Jordan Rosenblatt, a purported shareholder of
Almost Family filed a complaint for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, styled Rosenblatt v. Almost Family,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-40-TBR (the "Rosenblatt Action").
The Rosenblatt Action was filed against the Company, Almost Family,
Almost Family's board of directors, and Merger Sub. The complaint
in the Rosenblatt Action asserts, among other things, that the Form
S-4 Registration Statement filed on December 21, 2017 in connection
with the Merger contained false and misleading statements with
respect to the Merger. The Rosenblatt Action sought, among other
things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing and an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
In addition to the Rosenblatt Action, two additional complaints
were filed against Almost Family in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions")
alleging similar violations as the Rosenblatt Action.
These Delaware Actions also sought, among other things, to enjoin
both the vote of the Almost Family stockholders with respect to the
Merger and the closing of the Merger, monetary damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs from Almost Family.
On February 22, 2018, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions moved for
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the merger of Almost Family and
Merger Sub. Then, on March 2, 2018, the Delaware Actions were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky.
Shortly thereafter, on March 12, 2018, Almost Family, the Company,
and Merger Sub opposed the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction, and the court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction on March 19, 2018. On March 22,
2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.
The next day, on March 23, 2018, one of the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Actions moved to consolidate the Delaware Actions with the
Rosenblatt Action and for the appointment of a lead plaintiff.
On December 19, 2018, the Court granted the motion to consolidate,
appointed Leonard Stein, a purported Almost Family shareholder, as
the Lead Plaintiff, and approved Stein's selection of Lead
Counsel.
On February 1, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint").
The Consolidated Complaint asserts claims against Almost Family,
the Company and Almost Family's board of directors for violations
of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act in connection with the
dissemination of the Company's and Almost Family's Proxy Statement
concerning the Merger, and asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims
and claims for violations of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against
Almost Family's former board of directors.
The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On April 12, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint and filed a motion to strike an affidavit attached to the
Consolidated Complaint. Lead Plaintiff opposed the Company's
motions on May 28, 2019, and the Company submitted reply briefs in
support of its motions on June 19, 2019. The Company's motions are
currently pending before the court.
LHC Group said, "We believe that the claims asserted in these
lawsuits are entirely without merit and intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LHC Group, Inc., a health care provider, specializes in the
post-acute continuum of care primarily for Medicare beneficiaries
in the United States. The company was founded in 1994 and is based
in Lafayette, Louisiana.
MARKOFF LAW: Morales Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Morales moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled LUIS MORALES, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARKOFF LAW, LLC and
SNAP-ON CREDIT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-01815 (E.D. Wisc.(E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").
While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).
The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.
As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MEDICAL SOCIETY: Lasley Files FCRA Suit in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Society
Business Incorporated. The case is styled as Shane Lasley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Medical Society Business Incorporated doing business
as: Bureau of Medical Economics, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05790-DJH (D., Ariz., Dec. 11, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Bureau of Medical Economics or BME is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
Stein Saks PLLC
285 Passaic St.
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (203) 282-6501
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MEDICINES COMPANY: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Novartis Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE MEDICINES COMPANY, ALEXANDER J. DENNER, GENO J.
GERMANO, JOHN C. KELLY, CLIVE MEANWELL, PARIS PANAYIOTOPOULOS,
SARAH J. SCHLESINGER, MARK TIMNEY, NOVARTIS AG, and MEDUSA MERGER
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-02248-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 10, 2019),
stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which the Company
will be acquired by Novartis AG and Medusa Merger Corporation.
On November 23, 2019, Medicines Company's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Novartis. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Medicines Company's
outstanding common stock for $85.00 per share in cash. The Tender
Offer is set to expire on January 3, 2020.
On December 5, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Solicitation Statement.
The Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections, and fails to disclose: (i) all
line items used to calculate (a) EBIT, (b) EBITDA, and (c)
unlevered free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP
to GAAP metrics, according to the Plaintiff. The Solicitation
Statement also omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisors in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, who owns Medicines Company common stock, contends
that the omissions in the Solicitation Statement are material in
that a reasonable shareholder like him will consider them important
in deciding whether to tender his/her shares in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. He adds that the omissions in the
Solicitation Statement are material to him and the proposed class,
and they will be deprived of their entitlement to make a fully
informed decision with respect to the
Proposed Transaction if such misrepresentations and omissions are
not corrected prior to the expiration of the tender offer.
Medicines Company is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on
atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Dickens Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Edward Dickens, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02265-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Pazuniak, Esq.
O'Kelly & Ernst, LLC
824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 478-4230
Email: GP@del-iplaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Vickers Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA VICKERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. & MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00552 (E.D. Tex., Nov.
13, 2019), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
On November 14, 2018, MCM sent the Plaintiff a collection letter.
The alleged debt identified was originally allegedly owed to
Synchrony Bank and was incurred only for personal, family or
household purposes.
The letter seeks to collect a debt. MCM purports the offer as a
special opportunity, only offered for this one period of time, on
this one offer. The Plaintiff asserts this language implies a sense
of finality and urgency of the offer and violates the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff has suffered an injury as a result of the Defendants'
conduct, the Plaintiff alleges.
MF is a debt collector. It regularly uses mails and/or telephone to
collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent consumer debts,
including delinquent consumer debts in the State of Texas. MCM is a
Kansas corporation with its principle place of business at 2365 MCM
collects debts in Texas and Nationwide, and Defendant regularly
attempts to collect debts alleged due to another.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samantha J. Orlowski, Esq.
Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
HALVORSEN KLOTE
680 Craig Road, Suite 104
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 451-1314
Facsimile: (314) 787-4323
E-mail: sam(@hklawstl.com
joel@hklawstl.com
MOD SUPER: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Talavera Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALIX TALAVERA, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff v. MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA
(CALIFORNIA), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV358339 (Cal.
Super., Nov. 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have failed to
provide the Plaintiff and others with meal and rest periods, and to
pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods.
Ms. Talavera also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and
all other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, to
reimburse them for business-related expenses, to provide them with
accurate written wage statements, and to timely pay them all of
their final wages following separation of employment pursuant to
the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee, who worked in California beginning in March 2018 through
September 2018.
MOD Pizza is a fast casual pizza restaurant chain based in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
farrah@setarehlaw.com
MOLMO FOOD CO: Laser Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molmo Food Co Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda
Laser and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Molmo Food Co Inc. and Guiseppe Cavagnaro, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-06938 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019).
Molmo Food Co Inc. was incorporated on in 2017 in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 695-0052
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Fraud Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Robert Nightingale, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National
Grid USA Service Company, Inc., and iQor US Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1884CV03190, was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston) on Nov. 13, 2019.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-12341 to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in
damages alleging fraud related laws.
National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. provides utility services.
The Company distributes electricity and gas energy. National Grid
supplies energy to customers throughout the northeastern United
States and the United Kingdom. iQor is a business process
outsourcing company which provides customer service, third-party
collections and accounts receivable management.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin Cox, Esq.
James W. McGarry, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
E-mail: bcox@goodwinlaw.com
jmcgarry@goodwinlaw.com
NAVIGANT CYMETRIX: Wilkins Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navigant Cymetrix Corporation and Navigant Consulting, Inc.,
removed the case captioned as BOBETTE WILKINS, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NAVIGANT CYMETRIX CORPORATION AND NAVIGANT CONSULTING,
INC., Case No. 19STCV35972 (Filed Oct. 8, 2019), from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Nov. 13, 2019.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-09755 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all wages owed to the class upon
discharge or resignation, including overtime and minimum wages and
meal and rest period premiums.
The class consists of all current and former hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees, who worked for any of the Defendants within
the State of California at any time during the period from four
years preceding the filing of the Complaint to final judgment who
reside in California.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas E. Hill, Esq.
Christina T. Tellado, Esq.
Deisy Castro, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 896 2400
Facsimile: 213 896 2450
Email: thomas.hill@hklaw.com
christina.tellado@hklaw.com
deisy.castro@hklaw.com
NCAA: Adeyemi Sues over Villanova Football Players' Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS ADEYEMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION;
and VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04655-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 22, 2019) is an action to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the
Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Villanova student-athletes.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendants failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other Villanova football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.
As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff
and countless former Villanova football players suffered and
continue to suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries.
NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Baugus II Sues over UMTC Football Athletes' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN BAUGUS II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
Nov. 22, 2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a
result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
("UMTC") student-athletes.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those of the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other UMTC football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and
for profit.
As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former UMTC football players suffered brain
and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football.
NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Bundy Sues over ESUP Football Athletes' Injuries
------------------------------------------------------
SHAHID BUNDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04658-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., Nov. 22,
2019) is an action to obtain redress for injuries sustained a
result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of East Stroudsburg University of
Pennsylvania ("ESUP") student-athletes.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those of the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other ESUP football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and
for profit.
As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former ESUP football players suffered brain
and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football.
NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NEW BALANCE: Matzura Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11344-RA
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing
in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Plaintiff alleges. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's store gift cards will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.
New Balance operates multiple retail locations in the State of New
York and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zare Khorozian, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
1047 Anderson Avenue
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Phone: 201.957.7269
Fax: 201.224.9841
Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
NEW YORK TRANSIT: Underpays Cashiers, Beckwith et al. Suit Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BECKWITH; JOHN CALHOUN; JOY A. CHACKO; AUDREY CHARLES;
PATRICIA TARRANT; and WEI ZHAO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10930 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26,
2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as cashiers.
New York City Transit Authority, doing business as Metropolitan
Transit, operates as a transortaion authority. The Authority
accounts for the operations of bus, subway, and railway.
Metropolitan Transit serves customers in the State of New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Burzichelli, Esq.
Daniel Doeschner, Esq.
GREENBERG BURZICHELLI GREENBERG P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 1515
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (516) 570-4343
E-mail: rburzichelli@gbglawoffice.com
ddoeschner@gbglawoffice.com
- and -
Robin Roach, Esq.
Steven E. Sykes, Esq.
125 Barclay Street, Room 510
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 815-1450
E-mail: rroach@dc37.net
ssykes@dc37.net
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Matzura Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11346
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing
in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Because the Defendant's store
gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates 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 store gift cards will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.
Nintendo operates multiple retail locations in the State of New
York and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zare Khorozian, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
1047 Anderson Avenue
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Phone: 201.957.7269
Fax: 201.224.9841
Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
NORTHPORT SWEET SHOP: Laser Files Suit under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Northport Sweet Shop, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Linda Laser and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Northport Sweet Shop, Inc. and Tiran Realty Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06941 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019).
Northport Sweet Shop, Inc. is a Family restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 695-0052
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
ONEOK INC: Lindsey Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lindsey, individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
ONEOK, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00284 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 11, 2019), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and others regularly worked more than 40 hours a week
but the Defendant did not pay these workers overtime as require by
the FLSA, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead, the Defendant improperly
classified the Plaintiff and other workers similarly situated to
him as independent contractors and paid them a flat amount for each
day worked without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members never received a guaranteed salary, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Welding Inspector from
July 2018 until May 2019.
ONEOK is a "leading midstream service provider" that "owns one of
the nation's premier natural gas liquid systems."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Costas Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion seeking
dismissal of the class action initiated by Mac Costas remains
pending.
On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas
on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the
Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer.
The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and against its officers pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the
quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained
material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with
respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a
result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs
suffered damages.
Following the Mac Costas filing and in accordance with the terms of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), a
number of law firms filed applications on behalf of entities
purporting to hold shares in the Company, seeking to be appointed
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action.
On March 12, 2019 the court appointed Phoenix Insurance Company
Ltd. as lead plaintiff and approved their selection of lead
counsel.
Pursuant to a scheduling stipulation entered between the parties,
Phoenix Insurance timely filed its consolidated amended complaint,
and the Company has timely filed its motion to dismiss. Motion to
dismiss was timely filed on July 12, 2019 and has been fully
briefed. On August 26, 2019 defendants filed their opposition brief
and on September 25, 2019 defendants filed their reply. Oral
arguments are scheduled before the court on November 18, 2019.
Ormat said, "The Company believes that it has valid defenses under
law and intends to defend itself vigorously."
Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Bid in Riche Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Delaware
Chancery Court has granted the plaintiff's application for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled, Riche v. Pappas, et al.,
Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018).
Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S.
Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class
action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG
shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG
and the individual members of the USG board of directors.
All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in
Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed.
The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class
action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v.
Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018).
An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a
confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The
amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing
damages.
On September 9, 2019 the Delaware Chancery Court granted the
plaintiff's application for class certification.
The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.
ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Document Production Sought in Fenwick Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to compel production of documents has been filed in the
case styled as Jaline Fenwick, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Orthopedic Specialty Institute,
PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-mc-00117-CEH-JSS (M.D., Fla., Dec.
11, 2019).
Orthopaedic Specialty Institute is one of Southern California's
premier orthopaedic medical groups located in the City of
Orange.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
Hiraldo PA
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
OXFORD INDUSTRIES: Sosa Files ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Industries, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Oxford Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11350 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019).
Oxford Industries, Inc. is a publicly traded clothing company in
the United States that specializes in high-end clothing and
apparel. The company carries many major labels, including Tommy
Bahama, Lilly Pulitzer and Southern Tide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zare Khorozian, Esq.
Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
1047 Anderson Avenue
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Tel: (201) 957-7269
Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: $300,000 Accrued to Settle Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company accrued a total amount of $300,000 as of
September 30, 2019, in connection with its settlement agreement for
the five merger-related lawsuits filed in 2018 and the first
quarter of 2019.
In connection with the proposed acquisition of the company by
Illumina, Inc., five lawsuits were filed, with each lawsuit naming
the company and its directors as defendants.
Three putative class action complaints, captioned Wang v. Pacific
Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-7450 (N.D.
Cal.), Morrison v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:18-cv-7654 (N.D. Cal.), and Speiser v. Pacific Biosciences of
California, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-0072 (N.D. Cal.), were filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 11, 2018, December 20, 2018, and January 4,
2019, respectively.
A fourth putative class action complaint, captioned Rosenblatt v.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-2005
(D. Del.), was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on December 18, 2018.
An individual complaint, captioned Washington v. Pacific
Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-7614 (N.D.
Cal.), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on December 19, 2018. Each of these
lawsuits asserted claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
disclosures contained in the company's preliminary proxy statement
on Schedule 14A, filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on December 5, 2018, the company's definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on December 18, 2018,
or both.
The complaints sought a variety of equitable and injunctive relief
including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the
acquisition and awarding the plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees.
Although the company's management believed that the claims were
without merit, the company agreed to make supplemental disclosures
in exchange for plaintiffs' agreement that the supplemental
disclosures would moot their claims. The company made these
supplemental disclosures in a proxy statement amendment on Schedule
14A, filed with the SEC on January 18, 2019.
On January 29, 2019, all parties to each of the lawsuits reached an
agreement pursuant to which we would pay a total of $300,000 in
attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.
On January 29, 2019, each plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of
his or her lawsuit.
"As of September 30, 2019, we paid a total amount of $300,000 for
the five lawsuits filed in 2018 and the first quarter of 2019," the
company said.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. designs, develops, and
manufactures sequencing systems to resolve genetically complex
problems. The company was formerly known as Nanofluidics, Inc.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Menlo Park, California.
PANDA RESTAURANT: Spargifiore Sues for Not Paying All Wages Owed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Spargifiore, an individual, for herself and all members of
the putative class v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV44438 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 11, 2019), is
brought against the Defendant for regularly and consistently
failing to pay the Plaintiff all wages owed, under the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders and/or applicable Labor Codes,
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure.
The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and
class members were entitled to receive certain wages for all work
performed, including for overtime compensation, the Plaintiff
contends. The Defendants knew or should have known that the
Plaintiff and the other class members were working over 8 hours per
day and were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime
compensation and that they were not receiving wages for overtime
compensation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt or
hourly-paid employee.
PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, and transacts business
throughout the Slate of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Rex Parris, Esq.
Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
John M. Bickford, Esq.
Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93534
Phone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
PLACER TITLE: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PLACER TITLE COMPANY.
The case is styled as Monica Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLACER TITLE
COMPANY, A CALFORNIA CORPORATION, MOTHER LODE HOLDING COMPANY, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-103486 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec. 12, 2019).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
Placer Title Company is a full-service title and escrow operation,
serving Northern and Central California from nearly 50 branch
locations in 20 counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by JAMES R HAWKINS, ESQ.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Dismissal in Texas Securities Suit Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a Texas securities class action against Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P., among other defendants, is now final after
the plaintiffs failed to seek Supreme Court review of the decision,
Plains All American Pipeline said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.
Two securities law class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of
certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or Plains GP
Holdings, L.P. (PAGP) against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain
of their respective officers, directors and underwriters.
Both of these lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.
In general, these lawsuits alleged that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts
and concealing of the true extent of the spill.
The plaintiffs claimed unspecified damages as a result of the
reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and
PAGP, which they attributed to the alleged wrongful acts of the
defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants,
denied the allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits.
On March 29, 2017, the Court ruled in the Company's favor
dismissing all claims against all defendants.
Plaintiffs refiled their complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court
dismissed all of the refiled claims against all defendants with
prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and on July 16, 2019
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
The time period for a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court has
lapsed so this ruling is now final.
Plains All American said, "Consistent with and subject to the terms
of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent
applicable, insurance policies), we indemnified and funded the
defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with this
lawsuit; we also indemnified and funded the defense costs of our
underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements
we previously entered into with such underwriters."
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Suits Related to Line 901 Incident Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend several class action suits related to
the Line 901 incident.
In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.
A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of
Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of
Emergency Management, was established for the response effort.
Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been
dissolved.
The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels
reached the Pacific Ocean.
Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact us to discuss their damage claims.
The company received a number of claims through the claims line and
the company has been processing those claims and making payments as
appropriate.
In addition, the company had nine class action lawsuits filed
against it, six of which have been administratively consolidated
into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.
In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release. To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of
claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the
certification of the oil-industry sub-class, so the remaining
sub-classes that have been certified include (i) commercial
fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in
the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or
businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; and
(ii) beachfront property and easement owners whose properties were
oiled.
Plains All American said, "We are also defending a separate class
action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line
901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well
as compensatory damages."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.
POP BY LAMANTIA: Laser Files ADA Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Pop By LaMantia, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Linda Laser and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Pop By LaMantia, Inc., James Reichert and Teresa
Reichert, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06942 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 11,
2019).
Pop By LaMantia, Inc. is a pop art gallery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 695-0052
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
PRINCETON, NJ: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Saunders Civil Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Hardy Saunders, Jr., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled William Saunders, Jr. v. Arts Council
of Princeton, et al., Case No. 3-19-cv-19018, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.
The appellate case is captioned as William Saunders, Jr. v. Arts
Council of Princeton, et al., Case No. 19-3502, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM HARDY SAUNDERS, JR., Artist and
Photographer, Member of Class Represent Minority Group; As
Individual; and On behalf Class All Other Persons Similarly
Situated John and Mary Does One Through Hundred Yet to Be
Identified and Determine Part of this Action a Suit for Damages, of
Princeton, New Jersey, appears pro se.
The Defendants are: ARTS COUNCIL OF PRINCETON; JIM LEVINE,
Executive Director; MARIA EVANS, Being Sued Individually; LIZ
LEMPERT, Mayor, Being Sued Individually; COUNCIL MEMBERS,
Individually and In Official Capacity; CITY MUNICIPALITY PRINCETON
NEW JERSEY; PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; LEWIS CENTER FOR THE ARTS; MUSEUM
OF ART FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; PRINCETON HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
COMMISSION; and PUBLIC ART SELECTION COMMITTEE OF PRINCETON.[BN]
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Amended Complaint Filed in Patel Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that an
amended complaint has been filed in the class action suit initiated
by Meher Patel.
On March 1, 2019, Meher Patel filed suit against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Tuolumne County, on
behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserting violations under the California Labor
Code relating to the alleged failure by LogistiCare to comply with
certain applicable state wage and related employment requirements,
as well as claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties, as well as certification as a class action.
On September 6, 2019, Ms. Patel amended her complaint to add
Provado Mobile Health, a Company subsidiary, as a party to the
suit.
Providence Service said, "No amounts have been accrued for any
potential losses under this matter, as management cannot reasonably
predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses. The
Company and its subsidiary intend to defend the litigation
vigorously. Although the outcome of such matter is inherently
uncertain and may be materially adverse, based on current
information, the Company does not expect the case to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations."
The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Former Ride Plus Driver Sues in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Ride
Plus is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Lynch v. Ride
Plus et al.
In Lynch v. Ride Plus et al., which is pending in the Superior
Court for the County of San Diego, California, a former Ride Plus
driver has sought to represent all Ride Plus drivers in California
on claims that they were misclassified as independent contractors
and that, among other things, they were not paid minimum wages,
overtime wages, meal period premiums and rest period premiums.
The Company has not yet been served with the complaint but intends
to vigorously defend the claims.
Providence Service said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it
is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiff will
succeed in getting the court to certify a class, whether she and
the class will prevail on their claims, or what they might
recover."
The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
REALGY LLC: Lindenbaum Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Lindenbaum, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. REALGY, LLC d/b/a REALGY ENERGY SERVICES, a
Connecticut limited liability company, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02862 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 11, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants arising under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff files this complaint against the Defendant to: (1)
stop their practice of placing calls using "an artificial or
prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide
without their prior express written consent; and (2) obtain redress
for all persons injured by their conduct.
The Defendants were, and are, aware that their unsolicited
prerecorded calls were, and are, unauthorized as they fail to
obtain prior express written consent before placing those calls to
consumers, the Plaintiff alleges. Ultimately, consumers are forced
to bear the costs of receiving these unsolicited prerecorded calls.
By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls at issue in this
Complaint, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury, says
the complaint.
Roberta Lindenbaum is a natural person and resident of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.
Realgy Energy is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice
Program, offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam T. Savett, Esq.
SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
2764 Carole Lane
Allentown PA 18104
Phone: (610) 621-4550
Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
Email: adam@savettlaw.com
- and –
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (312) 483-1032
Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached over Dismissal of Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rudolph Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company and the
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits challenging the Company's
merger deal with Nanometrics Incorporated have entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the intention to fully resolve and
dismiss each of the matters.
On June 23, 2019, Rudolph Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Nanometrics Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, and
PV Equipment Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Nanometrics, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger. The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things and
subject to the satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the
merger of Merger Sub with and into Rudolph, with Rudolph surviving
the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Nanometrics.
Subsequent to the announcement regarding the Company's intention to
merge with Nanometrics Incorporated, five (5) complaints were filed
in August, September, and October 2019 by purported shareholders
against the Company and its current directors, with one lawsuit
including Nanometrics and PV Equipment Inc. as defendants as well.
Two of the lawsuits were filed as class action litigation in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware --
Rosenblatt v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al., (the "Rosenblatt
Action"), and Stein v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al., (the "W.
Stein Action").
The other three lawsuits were filed by individual plaintiffs, one
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware --
Stein v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (the "S. Stein
Action"); one in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey -- Parikh v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al., (the
"Parikh Action"); and one in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts -- Roy v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc.,
et al., (the "Roy Action").
On October 11, 2019 the Company filed supplemental disclosures to
the definitive proxy statement originally filed on August 15, 2019.
That same day, the Company and the plaintiffs in the S. Stein,
Rosenblatt, W. Stein, and Roy Actions entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the intention to fully resolve and dismiss each
of the matters.
Also on October 11, 2019, the Company and the plaintiff in the
Parikh Action agreed in principle that he would dismiss with
prejudice the claims asserted in that action, in return for the
Company's agreement to make the Supplemental Disclosures.
Pursuant to these agreements, the parties will attempt to resolve
plaintiffs' counsel's claim for attorney's fees and expenses based
upon the purported benefit they believe was conferred upon Rudolph
shareholders by causing the Supplemental Disclosures to be
disseminated. The plaintiffs and their counsel have reserved their
right to file applications seeking attorney's fees and expenses and
the Company has reserved its right to oppose such fee
applications.
Rudolph Technologies, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
supports defect inspection, process control metrology, and data
analysis systems and software used by semiconductor device
manufacturers worldwide. The Company provides yield management
solutions that are used in both the wafer processing and final
manufacturing of ICs, as well as in emerging markets such as LED
and Solar. The company is based in Wilmington, Massachusetts.
SANDBOX ENTERPRISES: Underpays Equipment Operators, Deloach Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARMARCUS DELOACH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANDBOX ENTERPRISES, LLC; SANDBOX
TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and SANDBOX LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendants, Case
4:19-cv-04598 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 25, 2019) 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 Plaintiff Deloach was employed by the Defendants as equipment.
Sandbox Enterprises, LLC operates in energy industry. The Company
was incorporated in 2013 and is based in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Center
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
SCHOTT NYC CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schott NYC Corp. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Schott NYC Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11382 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Schott NYC (Schott Bros) is an American clothing manufacturing
company located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
SEMGROUP CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of SemGroup Corporation ("SemGroup")
(NYSE: SEMG) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of SemGroup by Energy Transfer LP ("Energy Transfer")
and Nautilus Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub") announced on September
16, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against SemGroup,
its Board of Directors (the "Board"), Energy Transfer, and Merger
Sub, is captioned Thompson v. SemGroup Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-01948 (D. Del.).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.
On September 15, 2019, SemGroup entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Energy Transfer and Merger
Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders
of SemGroup will receive $6.80 in cash and 0.7275 shares of Energy
Transfer common stock per share (the "Proposed Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and Energy Transfer's
financial projections and the analyses performed by SemGroup's
financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of SemGroup common stock.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Gina M. Serra
(888) 969-4242
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com
[GN]
SNAK-KING CORP: Haslerig Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Haslerig, Leonard Williams and Bernard Payne, Jr., on behalf
of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known
and unknown v. SNAK-KING CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-08109 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 11, 2019), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance.
The Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without
pay at a rate of time and one-half the effective regular rates of
pay for such hours pursuant to the requirements of the federal and
state statutes relied upon herein. The Plaintiffs were not paid by
hourly rate, but instead received only a commission of 13% of their
total weekly sales as payment in full for all hours worked in
individual work weeks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant
who were employed by as Route Sales Representatives.
SNAK-KING CORP. is a large food and beverage company that
manufactures and distributes snack foods under a number of
different consumer brand names, including "Vitners."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 853-1450
SPACE NK USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Space NK USA LLC. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Space NK USA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11384 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Space Nk was founded in 1992. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
SPARK ENERGY: $7MM Settlement in Albrecht Case Wins Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the $7.0 million
class settlement in the case, Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC, has
received preliminary court approval.
Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC is a putative nationwide class action
that was filed on February 12, 2018 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Oasis
made illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls, including auto-dialed
calls, to consumers' mobile phones, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Illinois Automatic
Telephone Dialers Act ("ATDA").
Plaintiff sought an injunction requiring Oasis to cease all
unsolicited calling activities, an award of statutory and trebled
damages under the TCPA and the ATDA, as well as costs and
attorney's fees.
The parties have reached a class settlement on behalf of Oasis and
other affiliated brands in the amount of $7.0 million, which has
received preliminary court approval.
The Company has sought indemnity and insurance coverage from two
vendors and their carriers that worked on the telemarketing
campaigns at issue.
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
SPARK ENERGY: Bid for Class Cert. in Richardson Suit Due Dec. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case, Richardson et al. v. Verde
Energy USA, Inc., is due on or before December 23, 2019.
Richardson et al. v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") or a prerecorded voice to the purported
class members' cellular phones without prior express consent and by
continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the
calls to cease.
Following discovery and dispositive motions, the Verde Companies
received a favorable ruling on summary judgment with the court
agreeing with the Verde Companies that the call system used in this
case was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA.
Plaintiffs subsequently amended their petition eliminating their
ATDS claim and including a class based on failure to comply with
the National Do Not Call registry. As part of an agreement in
connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the
original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter.
The parties reached a confidential settlement in this matter.
A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval
was held on September 23, 2019, at which the Court denied
preliminary approval. Negotiations with the Plaintiffs continue in
an effort to modify the settlement to meet the Court's concerns.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due to be filed
on or before December 23, 2019.
The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage, net of tax
benefit, for the settlement exposure in this case.
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
STATE FARM LIFE: Appeals Ruling in Bally Case to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Permission to Appeal was filed by the Defendants in
the class action styled as Elizabeth A. Bally, Individually and On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v.
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Petitioner, Case No.
3:18-cv-04954-CRB, (N.D. Ca.).
The appellate case is assigned Case No. 19-80160 and filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 5,
2019.
State Farm Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers life insurance products, as well as insures
cars, boats, motorcycles, homes, and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff-Respondent is represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Girard Sharp LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Personal: 415-981-4800
[COR NTC Retained]
- and -
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
Norman Siegel, Esq.
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Personal: 816-714-7100
[COR NTC Retained]
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Miller Schirger LLC
4520 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Personal: 816-561-6500
[COR NTC Retained]
The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Crowe, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Business: 714-513-5100
Personal: 714-424-8231
[COR LD NTC Retained]
- and -
Frank Falzetta, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
Personal: 213-617-4194
[COR NTC Retained]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Leon Sues Over Faulty & Dangerous Windshields
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Leon and Louie Nevarez, individually, and on behalf of a
class of other similarly situated individuals v. SUBARU OF AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-02375-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2019),
arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing and selling of
new vehicles with defective and dangerous windshields that are
spontaneously and/or unreasonably cracking, chipping and otherwise
breaking, often within weeks or a few months of purchase.
The Plaintiffs bring their claims individually and on behalf of all
persons or entities in the United States and/or California who
purchased or leased a model year: (1) 2017-2020 Subaru Outback; (2)
2017-2020 Subaru Forester; (3) 2017-2020 Subaru Crosstrek; (4)
2017-2020 Impreza; (5) 2017-2020 Legacy; and (6) 2019-2020 Ascent,
as well as those who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle and
suffered losses as a result of the defect during the period they
possessed the vehicle.
The placement windshields provided by the Defendant and paid for by
Class Members suffer from the same defect and, therefore, are
equally defective and dangerous, the Plaintiffs say. They demand
that the Defendant accept responsibility for replacing damaged
windshields under Subaru's new vehicle warranty at no charge to
Class Members and reimburse Class Members for losses suffered as a
result of the defect.
In addition to having their personal safety and that of the public
put at risk, owners of Class Vehicles are incurring substantial
monetary losses because the Defendant refuses to replace the broken
windshields under warranty or to reimburse consumers for the broken
windshields and other losses resulting from the defect, says the
complaint.
As a direct result of the Defendant's business practices and
wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have been harmed
and have suffered actual damages, including repair and replacement
costs, loss of use of their Class Vehicles, loss of the benefit of
their bargain, and costs and lost time associated with the defect
and bringing in their Class Vehicles for diagnosis and repair.
Plaintiff Leon purchased a used 2017 Subaru Legacy from Toyota of
Poway in Poway, California. Plaintiff Nevarez purchased a new 2018
Subaru Impreza Sport vehicle from a Subaru dealership Lancaster,
California.
Subaru markets and distributes automobiles throughout the United
States and is a division of the Japanese conglomerate Subaru
Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 915-9432
Fax: (650) 618-0478
Email: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
SWINGSET & TOY: Taveras Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NJSWHL
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS DEJESUS TAVERAS, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. SWINGSET & TOY WAREHOUSE, INC., and all other affiliated
entities and/or joint employers, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS, and ABEL
SANTOS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-20165 (D.N.J.,
Nov. 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law.
Beginning in 2010, and continuing through October 27, 2019, the
Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the Named
Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime
compensation, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff performed non-exempt merchandise delivery and
installation duties for the Defendants in New Jersey and based from
the Defendants' Bergen County, New Jersey warehouse.
The Defendants own, operate, and/or manage a wood and outdoor play
dealership from three locations in New Jersey, selling swingsets,
basketball courts, trampolines, and sheds throughout New Jersey,
the tri-state area and online. Mr. Santos managed day to day
operations, controlled the employees, pay practices and had the
power to change same, as well as the power to hire and fire
employees, set their wages, and otherwise control the terms of
employment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
T&S RESTAURANT: Mendoza Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Mendoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. T&S RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a GRACIE'S CORNER DINER and
ANASTASIO KATSAROS, Case No. 1:19-cv-11316 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11,
2019), is brought against the Defendants, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, claiming that the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of
hours" premium for each day his work shift exceeded 10 hours,
liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff says he worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff
worked in excess often 10 hours per shift. The Defendants knowingly
and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA
overtime rate (of time and one-half), or the New York State
overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct violation of the
FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work at the Restaurant
as a non-exempt dishwasher, baker, juice maker, porter, and
occasional food delivery worker.
T&S owns and operates a restaurant doing business as "Gracie's
Comer Diner."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jcpclaw.com
TERRA OILFIELD: Class of Operators Certified in Barhight Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald C. Griffin approves the Joint Motion for Entry of
Stipulation of Conditional Certification and conditionally
certifies the case styled RONNIE BARHIGHT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TERRA OILFIELD SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-00214-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), as a collective
action.
The Court finds that conditional certification is appropriate and
certifies this class:
All current and former operators or Supervisor Bs in Terra
Oilfield Services, LLC's Water Transfer division who were
paid by the hour in the three year-period preceding the
Court's entry of this Order.
The Court approves conditional certification of the proposed class
as agreed to by the parties and authorizes use of the Notice and
Consent Form Text Message Notice of Collective Action attached to
the parties' Joint Stipulation. The Defendant will provide the
Plaintiff in Excel format certain information regarding all
putative class members: full name; last known mailing address(es)
with city, state, and zip code; all known personal phone number(s);
and, only for any putative class member for whom the Defendant has
not provided a personal phone number, all known personal e-mail
addresses.
Judge Griffin authorizes the Plaintiff to issue the Notice and
Consent Form to be delivered to putative class members via first
class U.S. mail to the last known address of the putative class
members provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. However, in
the event the Plaintiff determines a putative class member has
filed a notice of change of address with the United States Postal
Service's NCOALink service, the Plaintiff may only send the
first-class U.S. Mail Notice and Consent Form to the subsequent
address on file with the United States Postal Service.
The Court authorizes the Plaintiff to issue the Text Message Notice
of Collective Action, filed as Exhibit B to the Stipulation to
putative class members via text message to their respective
personal phone number(s), if any, provided to the Plaintiff by the
Defendant. Only in the event the Defendant does not provide the
Plaintiff with a personal phone number for a putative class member,
the Plaintiff may send the Notice and Consent Form, filed as
Exhibit A to the Stipulation, to that putative class member via the
personal e-mail address(es) for such putative class member, if any,
provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
Only in the event a Notice and Consent Form mailed via U.S. first
class mail is returned undelivered to any putative class member,
the Plaintiff's counsel may contact the putative class member by
telephone call to the personal phone number provided to the
Plaintiff by the Defendant, only to verify the putative class
member's mailing address(es). In communicating with the putative
class member for the limited purpose of verifying a mailing
address, the Plaintiff's counsel must stick to the proposed script
attached to the Joint Motion as Exhibit C, and may not inquire
about any other contact information or subject other than the
current mailing address for the putative class member.
The Plaintiff is authorized to offer the putative class members the
option to consent to join this collective action through the use of
electronic signatures.
The Parties shall comply with this schedule:
-- No later than 10 days from the date of this Order -- The
Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff in Excel (.xlsx)
format the following information regarding all putative
class members: full name; last known mailing address(es)
with city, state, and zip code; all known personal phone
number(s); and, for any putative class member for whom the
Defendant has not provided a personal phone number, any
personal e-mail addresses;
-- Within 21 days of receiving the contact information for all
Putative Class Members -- The Plaintiff shall send a copy
of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the
putative class members by First Class U.S. Mail to the last
known address provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendant or
(if applicable) the most recent address provided for a
putative class member by the United States Postal Service's
NCOALink service; The Plaintiff may send the Court-approved
Text Message Notice of Collective Action to the putative
class members by text message to their respective last
known personal phone number(s), if any, provided to the
Plaintiff by the Defendant; for any putative class members
for whom the Defendant has not provided a personal phone
number, Plaintiff may send a copy of the Court-approved
Notice and Consent Form to such putative class member by
e-mail to the putative class member's personal e-mail
address provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendant; and the
Plaintiff may make the Notice and Consent Form available on
a Web site containing only the Notice and Consent Form and
permitting the return of electronic signatures on the
Consent Form. The Plaintiff shall not use any means to
publicize the Web site or direct putative class members or
anyone else to the Web site, other than as provided for in
this Order;
-- Within 5 days of the initial mailing of the Notice and
Consent Forms -- The Plaintiff shall file an Advisory with
the Court indicating the date of the initial mailing of the
Notice and Consent Form. Concurrently with the filing of
the Advisory, Class Counsel shall provide the Defendant's
counsel with a list of the putative class members to whom
the Plaintiff sent notice, including for each such putative
class member the date sent, method of delivery of the
notice and the contact information used to send the notice;
-- 60 days from the initial mailing of the Notice and Consent
Forms to Putative Class Members -- The putative class
members shall have 60 days from the date of mailing of the
Notice and Consent Form to return their signed Consent
forms to Plaintiff for filing with the Court (the "Notice
Period");
-- No later than 5 business days after the close of the Notice
Period -- Plaintiff shall deactivate the Web site solely
dedicated to disseminating notice; and
-- No later than 15 days after the close of the Notice Period
-- All Consents to Join shall be filed with the Court,
provided such Consents to Join were timely signed within
the Notice Period.
Other than as described in this Order, neither Party may send any
information relating to this lawsuit or otherwise communicate with
putative class members about matters related to this lawsuit except
to verify addresses as provided herein or respond to inquiries
initiated by putative class members, the Court says.
The Parties shall submit their joint proposed scheduling
recommendations, no later than 15 days after the close of the
Notice Period. The Parties shall submit their proposed scheduling
recommendations no later than March 31, 2020.
Judge Griffin further rules that the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification and Judicially-Supervised Notice Under
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act is denied as
moot.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Foster Sues Over Faulty Sound System in Lexus Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Foster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH
AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-08094-KAW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2019),
is brought against the Defendants, pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, due to a faulty sound system.
This action relates to the sound systems installed by Lexus in a
number of Lexus models. The Plaintiff alleges that the sound system
is flawed because the rear speakers transmit virtually undetectable
sound rendering them functionally useless. This issue is present in
the 2019 Lexus ES 350, and is a pervasive issue that has existed in
Lexus vehicles since at least 2010.
The sound systems affected include the "Lexus 10-Speaker Premium
Sound System." Lexus markets and warrants that the Faulty Sound
System is a premium system implying that it functions at a high
level, while in fact, due to an apparent design defect, portions of
it are functionally useless. Lexus has long known about this issue.
Customers have complained about the Faulty Sound System since at
least 2014.
The Plaintiff has notified Lexus regarding the issue and provided
Lexus with a reasonable opportunity to fix the Faulty Sound System,
but instead has been advised that the Faulty Sound System is
functioning as designed. Thus, Lexus has failed to remedy the
defect in a reasonable period of time. The Plaintiff's issues are
not unique, he has been advised by Lexus employees that other
customers have experienced the same issue, he has tested other ES
350 vehicles with the Faulty Sound System and discovered the same
issues, and there are numerous complaints online from unhappy
customers experiencing the same issue.
The Plaintiff contends that Lexus has and will continue to benefit
from its unlawful conduct--by selling more vehicles, at a higher
price, and avoiding warranty obligations--while consumers are
harmed at the point of sale as their vehicles continue to suffer
from the unremedied defects with the Faulty Sound System. Had the
Plaintiff and other proposed class members known about the defect
at the time of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or
leased vehicles with the Faulty Sound System, or would have paid
substantially less for them, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Lexus ES 350 with a "Lexus
10-speaker Premium Sound System" on September 27, 2018.
Toyota markets its luxury vehicles under the brand name Lexus.
Lexus is a division of Toyota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
246 5th Avenue, Suite 522
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (646) 443-6235
Email: rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com
TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Stern Files Suit in New York under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans-Continental
Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Sury Stern, As
Parent and Guardian of Baby Boy Stern on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans-Continental Credit &
Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06947 (E.D., N.Y.,
Dec. 11, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp or TCC is a debt
collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Continues to Defend PERS of Mississippi Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Public Employees'
Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.
On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.
The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20,
2016 through and including November 2, 2016.
It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses.
On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers.
This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.
On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, in
the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.
This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively on behalf
of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain
officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste.
On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
This complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting
violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers. Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is
purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts
claims for contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary
duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.
All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).
Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company’s Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.
The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors.
The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations
concerning events in 2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks
contribution from the individual defendants for losses incurred by
the company in these litigations.
The company believes that these claims are without merit and intend
to defend against them vigorously.
Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been
re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff.
On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12,
2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the
amended complaint. On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint
status report with the Court, which set forth a proposed discovery
and briefing schedule for the Court’s consideration.
On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
class, and defendants filed their response in opposition to the
motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018. On November 12,
2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay proceedings to
allow them to explore mediation. The motion was granted on November
19.
The parties thereafter engaged in mediation but failed to resolve
the dispute. On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by
filing an agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on
April 9.
Under that schedule, lead plaintiff filed its reply class
certification brief on May 17, 2019. No hearing on class
certification has been set and the motion for class certification
remains pending.
Defendants' document production is near completion, but the parties
intend to file an agreed motion to extend all case deadlines 60
days. Assuming this motion is granted, it would move the deadline
for document discovery motions to December 17, 2019; would push
completion of fact depositions to March 10, 2020; and would require
service of expert reports by April 28, 2020. Summary judgment
briefing would occur November 2020 through January 2021.
Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and
Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the
earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order
resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of
Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties.
On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint
motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in
light of the Public Employees’ Court's denial of the motion to
dismiss in February 2018.
The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further
deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018,
respectively. On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to
consolidate the Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be
subject to the Lavin deferral order. This motion was granted on
June 27, 2019, and Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and
deferred. There is no set status date in Lavin at this time.
Similarly, Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells on August 13,
2019, and is now deferred. In Wells, the next status conference is
set for March 6, 2020.
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Negrete v.
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al.
The Company is also party to matters challenging its wage and hour
practices.
These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.
TreeHouse Foods said, "While the Company cannot predict with
certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, it
does not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations, or business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit Resumes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that parties in
the case styled In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation
have re-commenced mediation with subscribers and providers.
Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of
providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association Antitrust Litigation.
Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service
area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue
Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under
federal antitrust laws.
As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro quo for said "market
allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and boycott conspiracy
implemented through BCBSA and whose benefits are allegedly derived
through the BCBSA's BlueCard/National Accounts Program.
Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased
compensation rates and operational changes.
In turn, subscriber plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy
to allocate markets have prevented subscribers from being offered
competitive prices and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan
subscribers.
Subscribers seek damages for the amounts that the Blue Plan
premiums allegedly have been artificially inflated as a result of
the alleged antitrust violations. Both actions seek injunctive
relief.
Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS -- whose request was ultimately denied by the
court without prejudice.
On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States
District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS.
Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS'
jurisdictional arguments. Since inception, the Company has joined
BCBSA and other Blue Plans in vigorously contesting these claims.
On April 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued it's ruling on the
parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment on the
standard of review applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1
of the Sherman Act and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on the Blue Plan's single entity defense.
After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment
purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most
favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the
combination of Exclusive Service Areas and the National Best
Efforts Rule are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b)
there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether
defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense;
and (c) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules
are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard.
On April 16, 2018, Defendants moved the Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to certify for immediate
interlocutory appeal the court's April 5, 2018 Standard of Review
Ruling.
On June 12, 2018, Hon. Judge Proctor agreed to grant Defendant's
motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).
Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2018. On
December 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
denied Defendants' petition to appeal the District Court's Standard
of Review Ruling.
The parties re-commenced mediation with subscribers on April 2019
and with providers on September 2019.
Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial,
Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life
Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management
Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.
TRIVITA INC: Fischer Seeks to End Unsolicited, Pre-Recorded Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fischer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRIVITA INC., an Arizona corporation, Case No.
6:19-cv-02333 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 11, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
making unsolicited, pre-recorded calls to consumers, and to
otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons
injured by the Defendant's conduct.
The Defendant's pre-recorded calls are for the purpose of marketing
the Defendant's product Nopalea. The Defendant places these
pre-recorded sales calls to consumers' phone numbers without
obtaining their prior express written consent, says the complaint.
The Defendant made unsolicited, pre-recorded sales calls to the
Plaintiff. In response to this call, the Plaintiff files this
lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to stop
making pre-recorded voice sales calls to consumers without their
consent, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of
the Class and costs.
Plaintiff Hernandez is a Port Orange, Florida resident.
TriVita is a personal wellness company that manufactures and sells
health products directly to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
Email: Law@StefanColeman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
Aritzia, Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
United States of Aritzia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11378
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Aritzia Inc. creates, develops, and sells women's fashion products.
The Company offers t-shirts, blouses, sweaters, jackets, coats,
pants, skirts, dresses, denim, intimates, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 317-2453
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
UNITED STATES: Al Otro Moves to Certify Class of Asylum Seekers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Al Otro Lado, Inc., et al. v. Chad F.
Wolf, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs move to provisionally certify a provisional class of:
all asylum seekers who were unable to make a direct asylum
claim at a U.S. POE before November 19, 2019 because of the
U.S. Government's metering policy, and who continue to seek
access to the U.S. asylum process.
Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf is automatically substituted for
former Acting Secretary Kevin Kealoha McAleenan pursuant to Rule
25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. McAleenan is an
American attorney and government official, who served as the acting
United States Secretary of Homeland Security from April to November
2019.
The parties conferred on December 4, 2019, regarding the Motion,
but were unable to resolve their dispute regarding it.
The Court will commence a hearing on January 13, 2020, to consider
the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone: (213) 621-9483
E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Ori Lev, Esq.
Stephen M. Medlock, Esq.
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
E-mail: olev@mayerbrown.com
smedlock@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Melissa Crow, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 705
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 355-4471
Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
E-mail: melissa.crow@splcenter.org
- and -
Baher Azmy, Esq.
Ghita Schwarz, Esq.
Angelo Guisado, Esq.
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 614-6464
Facsimile: (212) 614-6499
E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org
gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
aguisado@ccrjustice.org
- and -
Sarah Rich, Esq.
Rebecca Cassler, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 340
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 521-6700
E-mail: sarah.rich@splcenter.org
rebecca.cassler@splcenter.org
- and -
Karolina Walters, Esq.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
1331 G St. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 507-7523
Facsimile: (202) 742-5619
E-mail: kwalters@immcouncil.org
VALUCARE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gedeon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francessca Gedeon, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. VALUCARE, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-06954 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
violated the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by the minimum
and the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the New York Labor Law.
The Defendant has failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the
statutorily-required overtime rate for all hours that she has
worked and works in excess of forty in a week or at least at the
statutorily-required minimum wage rate for all hours worked, in
violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendant has also failed
to pay the Plaintiff all of her earned wages in a timely manner, in
violation of the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a home health aide
coordinator from September 28, 2014, to the present.
The Defendant is a Long Island and Brooklyn-based home healthcare
staffing agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle E. Mietus, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelly, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 248-5550
Fax: (516) 248-6027
VALVOLINE INC: Removes Allen et al. Suit to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DOROTHY ALLEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF GARRETT ALLEN; SIRROM STERGIS; CURTIS PRATT; JAMAR
BEASLEY; MARION ROUSE; JEVAN NEWCOMB; and ANTONIO WAINWRIGHT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VALVOLINE INC.; BRIAN FLEMING; and MATTHEW MARSHALL,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Common
Pleas Court of the State of Ohio, County of Cuyahoga (Case No.
ACV-19-923820) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio on November 26, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of Ohio assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02790.
Valvoline, Inc. manufactures and distributes automotive lubricants
and chemicals. The Company produces motor oil, antifreeze, brake
fluid, and grease products. Valvoline serves customers worldwide.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison L. Goico, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 977-8200
E-mail: allison.goico@dinsmore.com
WOLVERINE WORLD: Consolidated Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Individual lawsuits and three putative class action lawsuits have
been filed against the Company that raise a variety of claims,
including claims related to property, remediation, and human health
effects.
The three putative class action lawsuits were subsequently refiled
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan as
a single consolidated putative class action lawsuit.
The 3M Company, which sold Scotchgard containing per- and
poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the Company, has been named
as a co-defendant in the individual lawsuits and consolidated
putative class action lawsuit.
In addition, the current owner of a former landfill and gravel
mining operation has sued the Company seeking damages and cost
recovery for property damage allegedly caused by the Company’s
disposal of tannery waste containing PFAS (collectively with the
individual lawsuits and putative class action, the "Litigation
Matters").
Wolverine said, "Assessing potential liability with respect to the
Litigation Matters at this time, however, is difficult. The
Litigation Matters are in various stages of discovery and related
motions. In addition, there is minimal direct and relevant
precedent for these types of claims related to PFAS, and the
science regarding the human health effects of PFAS exposure in the
environment remains inconclusive and inconsistent, thereby creating
additional uncertainties. Due to these factors, combined with the
complexities and uncertainties of litigation, the Company is unable
to conclude that adverse verdicts resulting from the Litigation
Matters are probable, and therefore no amounts are currently
reserved for these claims. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself against these claims."
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. manufactures and markets branded
footwear and performance leathers. The Company's products include
shoes, slippers, occupational and safety footwear, and performance
outdoor footwear, among others. The company is based in Rockford,
Michigan.
YALE TILE: Soto Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA and NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR GONZALEZ SOTO, BAIRON ALVAREZ CARO, and ROBERTO VARGAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. YALE TILE & STONE LLC, and FRANCESCO LORENTI, and
DEMANDED ANTHONY DATTOLO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-06407 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks to recover
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding
$100,000 for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Soto was employed from October 2015 until June 2019 by the
Defendants at Yale Tile. Mr. while Caro was employed from November
2015 until June 2019 and Mr. Vargas was employed from August 2015
until June 2019. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the
Defendants as assistants, stone workers, and installers, or other
similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort
of functions for the Defendants, other than the executive and
management. The Plaintiffs say they worked approximately 48 hours
or more per week during their employment.
The Defendants willfully failed to post in a conspicuous place at
the location of their employment notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements as required by both the NYLL and the
FLSA, the lawsuit says.
Yale Tile & Stone LLC are retailers of exquisite granite, marble,
mosaics, limestone, travertine, slate, specialty tiles, custom
murals and cultured.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: 718-263-9591
*********
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 2019. 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 ***