/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191218.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 252
Headlines
ABILITY RECOVERY: Francis Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
ACE CASH: Failed to Provide Paid Rest & Meal Periods, Ancona Says
ADAMAS PHARMA: Alameda Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
ADVENTIS INC: Mey Files Consumer Credit Suit in West Virginia
ALBANESE ENTERPRISES: Faces Kaczor Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
ALDI INC: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALEIDA'S CAFETERIA: Paz-Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: R.A. Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
AMAZON.COM LLC: Cervera Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Narrows Claims in SDNY Class Suit
AMERICAN ADVISOR: Schick Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
AMERICAN HONDA: Tenzyk Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to C.D. Calif.
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Named in Shi Suit
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Amerio Suit
ATTENDANCE ON DEMAND: Trottier Sues Over Use of Biometric Data
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Kendrick TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
AXA EQUITABLE: Brach Family Foundation Class Suit Still Ongoing
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action
BANK OF NEW YORK: Investors Sue over Stanford Ponzi Scheme
BCFORWARD RAZOR: $415K Settlement in Rodriguez Suit Gets Final OK
BENIHANA INC: Kim Misbranding Suit Removed to C.D. California
BESTWAY RENTAL: Stillwell Insurance Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
BITMO INC: Mullins Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Text Messages
BITTER & ESTERS: Faces Calcano Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
BOY SCOUTS: Nauheimer Seeks to Recover Regular and Overtime Wages
BRP INC: Kusnierczyk Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
CACV OF COLORADO: Romy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CARRIZO OIL: Plaintiffs in Andre Class Suit Drop Claims
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Suit over Vectren Merger Pending
CENTURY 21: Bid to Dismiss Valdes' TCPA Suit Denied
COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Munsell Files Fraud Class Suit in Mass.
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Breach
CORREVIO PHARMA: Faces Feierstein Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CTA PIZZA: Court Approves $27K FLSA Class Settlement Deal
DANONE US: Sued by Cartelli for Mislabeling Vanilla Soy Creamer
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Warner Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
DONALD J. TRUMP: Court Tosses Cobb Complaint on Technicality
DR MARTENS: Camacho Files ADA Suit in New York
EASTER SEALS: Lanza Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
EAZE SOLUTIONS: Court OKs Arbitration in Williams' TCPA Suit
EDSAL MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
ELECTROLUX HOME: Obertman Sues Over Defective Dehumidifiers
EVENTBRITE INC: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Due Jan. 10
EVENTBRITE INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for March 26
EXXON MOBIL: Key Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
FIRST IMPRESSION: Hobbs Suit Moved From N.D. Georgia to N.D. Ill.
FITBIT INC: Flynn Files Securities Suit in Delaware
FITBIT INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for Jan. 8
FITBIT INC: Settlement Inked in Heart Rate Tracking Device Suit
FITBIT INC: Sleep Tracking Device Claims Deadline Due Dec. 22
GOGO INC: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Pierrelouis" Due Dec. 20
GOLDEN GATE: Faces Herndon Suit Alleging Violation of Tort Law
GRACELAND PROPERTIES: Faces Duvall Class Action in Kentucky
HC JOLIET: Faces Jackson Suit in Northern District of Illinois
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lancaster Antitrust Suit in Calif.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Health Secretary Files Appeal
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend Lawson Class Action
HOF'S HUT: Rodriguez Seeks Penalties for Improperly Paid Wages
KENCO GROUP: Hill-Patterson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
LUXOTTICA US: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASSAGE RETREAT: $212,771 Dahlheimer Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. OK
MDL 2672: Court Dismisses Misrepresentation Claims With Prejudice
MDL 2672: Filing of Revised Redacted Clean Diesel Suit Due Dec. 18
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: NVIDIA Merger-Related Suits Dropped
MK AUTOMOTIVE: Sued by Nichols Alleging Deceptive & Unfair Trade
MOVAGE INC: Letter Explaining How Williams Proceeds Due Dec. 18
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NBT BANK: Faces Lowe Suit Over Violation of Contract-Related Laws
NORTHEAST NATURAL: Heaster Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PEAK TECHNICAL: Pereyra Seeks Withheld Pay for Machine Operators
PRIMARK US: Calcano Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Interest Rate in Hsu Settlement Set
RA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Wheby Class Action
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Sitzer Class Suit Denied
RITA'S FRANCHISE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAHADI FINE: Calcano Sues Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
SALLY BEAUTY: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAN MEDICA: Faces Diebler Fraud Suit in District of New Jersey
SEMGROUP CORP: Faces Suits over Energy Transfer Merger Deal
SHAW INDUSTRIES: 9th Cir. Remands Fitch Case to Dist. Ct.
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Court Denies Winkworth's Bid to Remand Case
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Court Trims Ferguson Class Suit
ST. CROIX HOSPICE: Knull Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and WWPCL
SYNACOR INC: Plaintiff Seeks to File 3rd Amended Complaint
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Accord in Suit v. Sturm Foods Has Initial Okay
TRIDENT ASSET: Warner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
TRUECAR INC: Jan. 27 Final Hearing to Approve Milbeck Case Accord
TUMI INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TURF HOLDINGS: Gossen Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices
TVI INC: Hartranft Settlement Deal Gets Final Court Approval
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Rapada Suit Over IPO-Related Claims
UNITED COLLECTION: Warner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
UNTUCKIT LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
US PREMIUM: NBP Named as Defendant in Suits over Cattle Sales
VENATOR MATERIALS: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Cambria County Suit
VERA BRADLEY: Violates ADA, Calcano Suit Asserts
VINCE HOLDINGS: Calcano Suit Alleges ADA Breach
WARNER MUSIC: 9th Cir. Remands Williams Case to Dist. Ct.
WESTERN EXPRESS: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Medina Says
WILLIAM LYON HOMES: Faces Kent Securities Suit in Delaware
YOUTH OPPORTUNITY: Whitaker Files FLSA Suit in Arkansas
ZOGENIX INC: Lake Class Action Still Ongoing in California
*********
ABILITY RECOVERY: Francis Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ability Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Danielle Francis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Ability Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-08128-KAW (C.D. Cal., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Ability Recovery Services is a family-owned and operated collection
agency that specializes in the collection of consumer debt for
Higher Education Institutions, Telecom, Healthcare Providers,
Utility, and Financial Institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
ACE CASH: Failed to Provide Paid Rest & Meal Periods, Ancona Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA INES ANCONA, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC, a
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV41065 (Cal.
Super., Nov. 14, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to
provide the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with
compensated, duty-free rest and meal periods, pursuant to the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees have been classified as
non-exempt employees by the Defendants.
Ace Cash is a financial services provider that offers a range of
retail financial products and services, including short-term
consumer loans, check cashing, debit card services, money
transfers, bill payments, and money orders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw. com
- and -
Steven Orew, Esq.
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
ADAMAS PHARMA: Alameda Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Adamas 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 putative class action suit in the California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG1901875).
On May 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG1901875),
naming as defendants the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers. Other similar cases may
be filed in the future.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former directors
and officers for allegedly making false statements and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus filed by the Company in
connection with our January 24, 2018, secondary public offering of
common stock.
The Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
This action is ongoing.
The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.
ADVENTIS INC: Mey Files Consumer Credit Suit in West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adventis, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Diana Mey, Individually and on behalf of
a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Adventis, Inc. a Former Virginia stock corporation, Adventis
Acquisition, Inc. its parent, Skyline Metrics, LLC a Virginia
limited liability company, Longwood Industries, Inc. A Virginia
corporation, Bryant F. Cass, an individual, John Doe, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00332-FPS (N.D.W. Va., Dec. 13, 2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Adventis, Inc. is a privately held company in Roanoke, VA and is a
Single Location business, categorized under Online Service
Providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Hogan, Esq.
Bailey & Glasser, LLP - Morgantown
6 Canyon Rd., Suite 200
Morgantown, WV 26508
Phone: (304) 594-0087
Fax: (304) 594-9709
Email: BHogan@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Jonathan R Marshall, Esq.
Bailey & Glasser LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 345-6555
Fax: (304) 342-1110
Email: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
ALBANESE ENTERPRISES: Faces Kaczor Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Kaczor, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
ALBANESE ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PARADISE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a
Florida Profit Corporation; FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a LIVE
BAR, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and KLODIAN FERRA,
individually, Case No. 3:19-cv-01426 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants arising from their willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In March 2018, the Defendants began to compensate the Plaintiff the
Florida "tipped" minimum wage for some of the hours that she worked
each week through a paycheck due to employee complaints. However,
the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the Florida
tipped minimum wage for all of the hours that she worked each week,
according to the complaint.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants underreported
the number of hours that she worked on her paychecks. Moreover,
during June and July of 2019, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff any direct wages during numerous work weeks. As a result
of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff direct wages, she
complained to the Defendants. As a result of the Plaintiff's
complaints, Ferra instructed Glenn McClinton, a manager, to
terminate the Plaintiff's employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a bartender in
May 2017.
The Defendants own and operate two night clubs/bars in
Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 400
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 318-0268
Fax: (954) 327-3039
ALDI INC: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldi Inc. The case is
styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aldi Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07006 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
ALDI Inc. owns and operates grocery stores. The Company offers
grocery, meat, fresh produce, wine and beer, beverages, and other
home products.[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
ALEIDA'S CAFETERIA: Paz-Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma S. Paz-Hernandez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
ALEIDA'S CAFETERIA INC. d/b/a ENRIQUETA'S CAFETERIA and JOSE PLA
and LUCIA PLA, Case No. 1:19-cv-25131-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 12,
2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 51 hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and
one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed. In
addition, the Defendants did not properly compensate the Plaintiff
all of her minimum wages for hours that she worked for the
Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages
accumulated from the date of hire and/or from 3 years back from the
date of the filing of this Complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waitress.
The Defendants are a Florida company and Florida residents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
AMAZON.COM INC: R.A. Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order dated December 6 dismissing
the case, R.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06454
(C.D. Calif., July 25, 2019), following a notice of voluntary
dismissal, without prejudice, by the plaintiff.
"The Court, having been advised by the Plaintiff that this action
has been resolved by a Notice of Dismissal, hereby orders this
action dismissed without prejudice. The Court hereby orders all
proceedings in the case vacated and taken off calendar," Judge
Carney said.
The case was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court,
19STCV20205, and removed to the federal district court.
In September, Judge Carney denied Plaintiff's motion to remand. An
appeal followed, captioned as R.A., A MINOR , BY AND THROUGH HIS
GUARDIAN , STEVE ALTES , INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.
AND A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., the Defendants-Respondents, Case
No. 19-80126 (9th Cir.).
A2Z Development Center and Amazon.com, Inc. developed and operate
Amazon's popular Alexa virtual assistant, and the popular Echo line
of Alexa-enabled "smart" speakers.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner are:
Ashley Keller, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
Facsimile: (312) 971-3502
E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
- and -
Andrew Schapiro, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 705-7400
Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
AMAZON.COM LLC: Cervera Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, LLC, removed the case captioned as LISA CERVERA, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AMAZON.COM, LLC, Defendant, from the Superior Court of Gwinnett
County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on Nov. 13, 2019.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-05147-JPB to the proceeding.
The Defendant removes the civil action under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.
The complaint is based on Ms. Cervera's dissatisfaction with the
"Great Northern popcorn machine" she received "as a gift in
September of 2019." She alleges that due to faulty manufacturing,
"the 'POPCORN' lettering" on the machine she received was upside
down.
Amazon "refused to refund the purchase price" unless she returned
the machine; doing so was impractical given the machine's size and
the time and effort required to disassemble, repackage, and ship
it, the Plaintiff claims.
According to the complaint, Amazon delivers "hundreds or thousands"
of these popcorn machines with the same manufacturing defect "every
year." Amazon does so knowing that some customers will receive
defective machines and will not be willing to spend the time and
effort involved in returning the machines that is necessary to
receive their refund, the lawsuit says.
The complaint brings three claims against Amazon for fraud,
intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Defendant Amazon.com LLC is represented by:
Brennan W. Bolt, Esq.
Brendan Murphy, Esq.
Gregory F. Miller, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
500 North Akard Street, Suite 3300
Dallas, TX 75201-3347
Telephone: 214.965.7700
Facsimile: 214.965.7799
E-mail: BBolt@perkinscoie.com
BMurphy@perkinscoie.com
GMiller@perkinscoie.com
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Narrows Claims in SDNY Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, 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 U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted
the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in part
and denied it in part.
On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN, respectively,
were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and
directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters
of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as
defendants, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to alleged material
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the
secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures.
On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions.
On January 22, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.
On September 23, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.
AMERICAN ADVISOR: Schick Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ADVISOR GROUP, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05626-SPL (D. Ariz., Nov.
14, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to:
-- stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls using an
"automatic telephone dialing system" and/or using "an
artificial or prerecorded voice" to the cellular telephones
of consumers nationwide without their prior express written
consent;
-- enjoin the Defendant from continuing to place prerecorded
telephone calls to consumers who did not provide their
prior written express consent to receive them; and
-- obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.
AAG is a California corporation that engages in the practice of
manufacturing and offering financing options, including reverse
mortgages to homeowners. A reverse mortgage is a mortgage loan,
usually secured by residential property, that enables the borrower
to access the unencumbered value of the property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Penny L Koepke, Esq.
MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: 480-833-1001
E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
13 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: 720 213-0675
Facsimile: 303 927-0809
E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Tenzyk Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Sheryl Tenzyk and Larry Allen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., a California
Corporation and Honda North America Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06121 (Filed Nov. 1, 2018), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California (Western Division-Los Angeles) on Nov. 14, 2019.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-09787-CAS-JPR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder.
The suit demands $5 million in damages. The Plaintiffs brought the
class action complaint against American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
Honda North America, Inc., and their present, former, or future
direct and indirect parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates,
agents, and/or other entities for damages and equitable relief.
One of the most basic safety features in every car in its
implementation of a system that allows the driver to easily take
the vehicle out of gear and place the vehicle in "Park," with the
knowledge and confidence that their vehicle will not inadvertently
roll away after the driver exits the vehicle.
Honda broke this minimum safety standard obligation. Its 2016, 2017
and, its 2018 Honda Civic vehicles equipped with CVT transmissions
have a common defect such that their drivers are unable to
determine whether the Class Vehicles are properly placed in "Park"
before exiting the vehicles.
The Class Vehicles fail to provide notice to drivers that their
Vehicle is out-of-gear, they fail to automatically activate the
Electric Parking Brake in certain situations (such as when the
driver exits the vehicle or when the driver's door is opened), and
they are prone to--and actually do--unintentionally roll away
(Rollaway Defect), often causing crashes or injuries, the lawsuit
says.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 South Gay Street Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Kizirian, Esq.
Peter T. Shapiro, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Named in Shi Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampio 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 court handling
the class action suit entitled, Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al. has appointed George Nikolaou as lead plaintiff and approved
his selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel.
On August 25, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company
commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476.
Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting material
information regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of
Ampion.
The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 14, 2017
through August 7, 2018. Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action
seeks unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
On September 27, 2019, the Court presiding over the Securities
Class Action issued an order appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Lead Plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint in late
fiscal 2019.
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions in the United States. The company is
developing compounds that decrease inflammation by inhibiting
specific pro-inflammatory compounds. Its product pipeline includes
Ampion, an intra-articular injection for the treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is
headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Amerio Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned STEVEN AMERIO and
ANDREW GOLDBERG, Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY W. GRAY, JR.; GREGORY P.
EDWARDS; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL LLC; BIM MANAGEMENT LP; and BENNINGTON
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-538
(N.D.N.Y.).
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.
Goldberg and Amerio assert three claims for relief under federal
law: (1) securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act (2)
control person liability for securities fraud under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and (3) a civil claim under 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(a) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO).
Plaintiffs also assert nine claims under New York common and
statutory law: (1) common law fraud (2) common law negligent
misrepresentation (3) common law breach of fiduciary duty (4)
common law conversion (5) common law unjust enrichment and (6-9)
four violations of New York Debtor and Creditor Law.
Relevant to the instant motion, on December 17, 2018, Goldberg and
Amerio moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 23(b)(3)
to certify this case as a class action. The parties fully briefed
the motion, and this Court denied it on September 3, 2019.
Plaintiffs have now moved this Court to reconsider the denial of
class certification under Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Rules of the
Northern District of New York.
A movant faces a strict standard in attempting to prevail on a
motion for reconsideration. Thus, a prior ruling will only be
reconsidered and vacated if: (1) there is an intervening change in
the controlling law (2) new evidence not previously available comes
to light or (3) it becomes necessary to remedy a clear error of law
or to prevent manifest injustice.
As defendants correctly note, Goldberg and Amerio have pointed to
no intervening change in law or previously unavailable evidence in
moving for reconsideration.
Instead, plaintiffs argue that this Court committed a clear error
of law based on four points: (1) that defendants have not asserted
a lack of reliance as an affirmative defense (2) that plaintiffs
could prove reliance through common evidence (3) that eight of the
twelve claims presented in the SAC do not require proof of reliance
and (4) that this Court should have partially certified a class
under Rule 23(c)(4) such that only reliance would need to be tried
on an individual basis. None of Goldberg and Amerio's advanced
arguments allow for reconsideration.
First, that defendants have not asserted a lack of reliance as an
affirmative defense does not somehow remove from Goldberg and
Amerio the burden of proving that element. As plaintiffs, they bear
the burden of proving every element of every claim that they
assert.
An affirmative defense, by contrast, is a defense that the
defendants must assert and prove, and for which they have the
burden. This is basic tort law. Barring a stipulation that Goldberg
and Amerio need not prove reliance, they must prove this element in
their fraud claims to carry their burden.To the extent that
plaintiffs argue that they have been absolved of their burden of
proof, that argument is nearly frivolous.
Second, it may very well be true that Goldberg and Amerio could
have proven reliance through common evidence, as they now suggest.
Again, however, plaintiffs seem to misunderstand the allocation of
burdens. They, and no one else, were responsible for advancing the
argument that this action would best be served by the class action
format. Defendants did not have the burden of proving that class
certification was inappropriate. Nor, for that matter, was this
Court obligated to comb through the record to hypothesize in what
ways plaintiffs could prove reliance.
Thus, plaintiffs' argument regarding class proof cannot require
this Court to reconsider its earlier decision.
For their third argument, Goldberg and Amerio correctly note that
there are more claims not involving reliance than there are claims
that do require proof of that element, and therefore argue that it
was error to rule that individual issues predominated. This
argument ignores, however, that the predominance inquiry does not
simply require a mathematical accounting of whether common or
individualized questions are more numerous. Instead, it `requires a
qualitative assessment, it is not bean counting.
Finally, regarding Goldberg and Amerio's fourth argument, it is
true that this Court could have used Rule 23(c)(4) to allow for
class resolution of the remaining issues while leaving the issue of
reliance to be dealt with on an individual, rather than class-wide,
basis. This Court specifically noted in the September 3 Decision
and Order, however, that it would achieve no economy of time,
effort or expense to proceed with a litany of lesser issues in a
class setting, ignoring the reliance issue as it broods overhead.
That proposition remains just as true one month later as it was
then. In any case, plaintiffs did not present any arguments in
favor of class certification limited to only certain issues.
They cannot now complain that this Court did not do their work for
them. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration must therefore be
denied, rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5vk6twq from Leagle.com.
Andrew Goldberg, Individually and as Co-Lead Plaintiffs on behalf
all others similarly situated, as a class, Plaintiff, represented
by John C. Cherundolo , Cherundolo Law Firm, PLLC, 100 Madison
Street #1701, Syracuse, NY 13202, Kevin P. Roddy -
kroddy@wilentz.com - Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA, J. Patrick
Lannon , Cherundolo Law Firm, PLLC, 100 Madison Street #1701,
Syracuse, NY 13202 & James E. Tonrey, Jr. - jtonrey@wilentz.com -
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA.
Steven Amerio, Individually and as Co-Lead Plaintiffs on behalf all
others similarly situated, as a class, Plaintiff, represented by
James E. Tonrey, Jr. , Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA & Kevin P.
Roddy , Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA.
Bernard J. Malone, Mediator (Mandatory Program), pro se.
Gregory W. Gray, Jr., Defendant, pro se.
Gregory P. Edwards & Bennington Investment Management, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Michael J. Grudberg -
mgrudberg@tarterkrinsky.com - Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP.
Lucien A Morin, II, Intervenor Defendant, represented by William E.
Brueckner, III -wbrueckner@mccmlaw.com - McConville, Considine Law
Firm.
ATTENDANCE ON DEMAND: Trottier Sues Over Use of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TROTTIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATTENDANCE ON DEMAND, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH13230 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 14, 2019), seeks to redress and
curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric
data.
Chief among the products Attendance on Demand supplies are
biometric time keeping devices, including fingerprint readers, hand
geometry readers, and other similar devices (Biometric Data
Readers), which require scans of users' biometric data in order for
those users to clock in and out of work. Attendance on Demand
requires users to scan their biometric identifiers, namely their
fingerprints or hand geometry, to be used as an authorization
method to track their time at work by using a scan of that
biometric information to clock in and out of work shifts and meal
breaks.
To enroll at a biometric timeclock, a user is required to scan a
biometric identifier, in the form of fingerprints or hand geometry,
to create a template of said identifier, which is then subsequently
used for either identification or verification and is refined upon
each subsequent scan of that biometric identifier, the lawsuit
says.
Attendance on Demand is a company that supplies integrated,
cloud-based, automated time and attendance solutions, which
includes data collection devices in the form of time clocks, as
well as software to maintain data collection from time clocks, to
companies across an array of industries. Attendance on Demand
additionally delivers cloud-based software that integrates payroll,
human resources, and time and attendance systems, accessible on a
web-based platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312 233 1550
Facsimile: 312 233 1560
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: 314-833-4825
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Kendrick TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Kendrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-00483-KKC (E.D. Ky., Dec. 12, 2019), seeks to secure
redress from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy by causing unsolicited text messages to be made to the
Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through
the use of an auto dialer. The Defendant made one or more
unauthorized text message to the Plaintiff's cellular phones using
an automatic telephone dialing system for the purpose of soliciting
business from the Plaintiff.
In response to the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff
seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited text messaging activities to consumers and/or text
messaging activities after a consumer requests that the texts stop,
and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes
under the TCPA.
Plaintiff Lee Kendrick is a resident of Kentucky.
The Defendant is a provider of human resource management software
and services with revenues in the billions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
AXA EQUITABLE: Brach Family Foundation Class Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Holdings, 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, Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.
In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.
This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all
owners of universal life ("UL") policies subject to AXA Equitable
Life's COI rate increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable Life raised
COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007,
which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value
amount of $1 million and above.
A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.
The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by AXA
Equitable Life in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute.
Plaintiffs seek: (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and
post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.
Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against AXA Equitable Life and have been coordinated
with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.
They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states'
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions
are also pending against AXA Equitable Life in New York state
court.
AXA Equitable Life is vigorously defending each of these matters.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Holdings, 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, Richard T.
O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.
In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.
This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable Life, which
were subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy
and who suffered injury as a result thereof.
Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that AXA
Equitable Life implemented the volatility management strategy in
violation of applicable law.
In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In March 2017, the Southern District
of New York granted AXA Equitable Life’s motion to dismiss the
complaint.
In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April
2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to remand the
case to Connecticut state court.
In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following
AXA Equitable Life's notification to the court that it would not
file a petition for writ of certiorari. The case was transferred in
December 2018 and is pending in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial District of Stamford.
AXA Equitable said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.
BANK OF NEW YORK: Investors Sue over Stanford Ponzi Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon 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 a group on investors have filed a class action suit
against the company over matters related to R. Allen Stanford.
In late December 2005, Pershing LLC became a clearing firm for
Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered broker-dealer that was
part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R. Allen
Stanford ("Stanford").
Stanford International Bank ("SIB"), also controlled by Stanford,
issued certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors allegedly
wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs.
In 2009, the SEC charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in
connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into
receivership. Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed 15 lawsuits
against Pershing that are pending in Texas, including a putative
class action. The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC's
clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert
contractual, statutory and common law claims.
On July 12, 2018, a federal district court dismissed six of the
individual lawsuits and those cases are on appeal.
On March 8, 2019, a group of investors filed a putative class
action against The Bank of New York Mellon, making the same
allegations as in the prior actions brought against Pershing. FINRA
arbitration proceedings also have been initiated by alleged
purchasers asserting similar claims.
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and
high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services. The Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation was founded in 1784 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
BCFORWARD RAZOR: $415K Settlement in Rodriguez Suit Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division issued a Final Order and
Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class and Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned
JESSE RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BCFORWARD RAZOR LLC, an Indiana
Limited Liability Company, BUCHER AND CHRISTIAN CONSULTING, INC.,
an Indiana Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-03219-EJD (N.D. Cal.).
The Court finds that class certification of the following Class,
for settlement purposes only, is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All non-exempt Customer
Service Representatives, Application Support Specialists, Contact
Center Agents, Customer Support Agents, Subscription Support
Agents, Customer Service Agents, Incubation Specialists, Product
Specialist Support Agents, Premium Customer Service
Representatives, Renewals Specialists, Developer Support Operations
Specialists, App Technical Supports, Technical Support Analysts,
Application Review Analysts and In-Store Tech Supports who have
provided resources to Accenture LLP through their employment with
BCForward Razor LLC in California from April 23, 2014 through April
30, 2019.
The Court finds that the Class meets the ascertainability,
numerosity, commonality and typicality requirements to justify
certification and that resolution of this matter through a class
action is superior to other available methods.
The Court finds that Plaintiff Jesse Rodriguez is an adequate class
representative and appoints him as such.
The Court finds that Class Counsel, David Yeremian and Jason
Rothman of David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. have adequately
represented the Class, and their appointment as Class Counsel is
confirmed.
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
The terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and
the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of
this class action settlement are satisfied, including the
provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Settlement has been reached as a result of intensive, serious,
and non-collusive, arms-length negotiations and was achieved with
the aid of an experienced mediator. The Settlement is approved in
its entirety.
Class Counsel are experienced class action litigators and have
expressed the view that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.
There are no Class Members who timely requested exclusion from the
Settlement, and no Class Members objected to it.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, in exchange for the
Settlement Class Members agreeing to release the Released Claims,
the Maximum Settlement Amount Defendants will be required to pay
under the Settlement is $415,000.00, which is inclusive of the
Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, Claims
Administration Costs, the PAGA Penalty Payment, Settlement Payments
to Settlement Class Members, and the Service Enhancement Payment to
the Class Representative.
DISMISSAL AND RELEASE
This action shall be dismissed on the merits with prejudice, with
each party bearing his/her/its own costs, except as provided in the
Settlement.
By this Final Approval Order, Plaintiff shall release, relinquish
and discharge all Class Representative Released Claims as defined
in the Settlement and incorporated by reference herein.
By this Final Approval Order, each of the Settling Class Members
who did not opt out of the Settlement shall be deemed to have
fully, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Class
Member Released Claims against the Releases as defined in the
Settlement and incorporated by reference herein.
ALLOCATION OF THE SETTLEMENT
The Court approves that ILYM Group, Inc. will administer the
settlement and shall be paid claims administration expenses in the
amount of $7,500.00 from the Maximum Settlement Amount for its
services rendered in administering the settlement, in accordance
with the Settlement.
The PAGA Payment arising under the California Private Attorneys
General Act of $10,000.00 is approved, with the LWDA receiving
$7,500.00 and the remaining $2,500.00 being redistributed to the
Class members. Payment of that amount shall be paid from the
Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, and there shall be no further recourse for the civil
penalties released under the terms of the Settlement.
Based upon application by Class Counsel and Plaintiff, and his
valuable contribution to this litigation, the Court approves the
payment of a Class Representative Enhancement and Service Award in
the amount of $5,000.00 to Plaintiff (in addition to any recovery
he may receive as a member of the Settlement Class) in exchange of
all Releases and in recognition of his efforts and the risks he
undertook in prosecuting this Action.
Based upon application by Class Counsel, the Court approves the
payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of
$103,750.00, which is 25% of the Maximum Settlement Fund of
$415,000.00 to be paid in the manner set forth in the Settlement
Agreement. Plaintiff's request for an award of reasonable
litigation costs is also approved. Out of the $17,500.00 allocated
to costs, Class Counsel has incurred approximately $11,938.82 in
costs through final approval. Class Counsel is awarded this amount,
and the difference between that number and the allocated amount
will be added back into the Net Settlement Amount to be distributed
to the Settlement Class Members in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement. Within 30 days of the Effective date, Defendants shall
provide the total amount to be funded.
Judgment is entered approving the terms of the Settlement. This
Order shall constitute Final Judgment for purposes of FRCP Rule 58.
This action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice. Each
party will bear its own costs except as provided otherwise in the
Settlement, rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y525553s from Leagle.com
Jesse Rodriguez, an individual on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Harmik Yeremian
- david@yeremianlaw.com - David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., Jason
Whitney Rothman - Jason@yeremianlaw.com - David Yeremian and
Associates, Inc. & Walter Lewis Haines - whaines@uelglaw.com -
United Employees Law Group, P.C.
BCForward Razor LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Jennifer P. Svanfeldt -
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com - GBG LLP, Theresa C. Mak -
theresamak@gbgllp.com - GBG LLP & Kevin Lawrence Quan -
kquan@allenmatkins.com - Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP.
Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc., an Indiana Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jennifer P. Svanfeldt , GBG LLP, Theresa
C. Mak , GBG LLP & Amelia Louise Sanchez-Moran , Jackson Lewis
P.C..
BENIHANA INC: Kim Misbranding Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benihana, Inc. removed the case captioned as YOUNGSUK KIM, an
individual, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BENIHANA, INC., and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV DS 1928920 (Filed Sept. 26,
2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Bernardino, 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.
5:19-cv-02196-CAS-KK to the proceeding.
The action seeks to remedy the unfair, deceptive, and unlawful
business practices of the Defendant with respect to the
adulteration of food and the false advertising or misbranding of
food items.
Benihana Inc. is an American restaurant company based in Aventura,
Florida. It owns or franchises 116 Japanese cuisine restaurants
around the world, including its flagship Benihana Teppanyaki brand,
as well as the Haru and RA Sushi restaurants.[BN]
Defendant Benihana, Inc., is represented by:
Daniel J. Herling, Es.
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415 432-6000
Facsimile: 415 432-6001
E-mail: djherling@mintz.com
- and -
Nicole V. Ozeran, Esq.
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310 586-3200
Facsimile: 310 586-3202
E-mail: nvozeran@mintz.com
BESTWAY RENTAL: Stillwell Insurance Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Nathaniel Stillwell and Michael
Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Bestway Rental Inc.; John Doe No. 1; and
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No.
36CV-19-00219, was removed from the Johnson County Circuit Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
(Little Rock) on Nov. 14, 2019.
The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00799-DPM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr.
The suit alleges violation of insurance-related laws.
Bestway, Inc. owns and operates rental-purchase stores in Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq.
WH LAW
1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: brandon@wh.law
chris@whlawoffices.com
Bestway Rental Inc. is represented by:
Phillip M. Brick , Jr., Esq.
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
Regions Center, Suite 2000
400 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
Telephone: (501) 376-2011
E-mail: pbrick@fridayfirm.com
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company is represented by:
David Koehler, Esq.
Stuart P. Miller, Esq.
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG
GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 688-8876
E-mail: dkoehler@mwlaw.com
smiller@mwlaw.com
- and -
Jordan Edwards, Esq.
Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30306
E-mail: jordan.edwards@alston.com
tiffany.powers@alston.com
BITMO INC: Mullins Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Mullins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. BITMO, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-02385-LAB-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 12,
2019), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful actions
of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed
unsolicited automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular
phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with
non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior
express written consent. The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's
prior express consent to place automated text messages to him on
his cellular telephone, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in Texas.
Bitmo is a technology company, which designs and develops mobile
platforms allowing consumers to give gifts easily and securely from
their mobile phones.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-7770
Fax: (619) 297-1022
Email: ak@kazlg.com
yana@kazlg.com
BITTER & ESTERS: Faces Calcano Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bitter & Esters
Brewing Company LLC. The case is captioned as Marcos Calcano, On
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bitter & Esters Brewing Company LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-06422-LDH-ST (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall.
Bitter & Esters is NYC's homebrew shop.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net
BOY SCOUTS: Nauheimer Seeks to Recover Regular and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE NAUHEIMER, individually, on behalf of all others and
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, JOHN
RICHERS, SEQUOIA COUNCIL, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 19CECG04094 (Cal. Super., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages, including unpaid
compensation for meal and/or rest period violation, liquidated
damages and other and costs, penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy of unlawfully denying the Plaintiff and Class Members
statutorily mandated meal and rest periods and semimonthly itemized
wage statements reflecting the total number of hours worked, the
applicable deductions, and the applicable hourly rates in effect
during the pay period.
The Plaintiff and all other persons have been employed by Boy
Scouts of America and Sequoia Council as non-exempt employees
within the State of California.
The Defendant operates a nationwide operation facilitating youth
activities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891—9800
Facsimile: (510) 891—7030
E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
lvannote@sca1aw.com
BRP INC: Kusnierczyk Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BRP INC., et al. The
case is styled as David Kusnierczyk, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRP INC., BRP US INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01602-DSC (W.D. Pa., Dec. 13, 2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Recovery/Enforcement.
BRP Inc. is a Canadian company that designs, develops,
manufactures, and distributes recreational vehicles. The Company
offers watercrafts, sport boats, snowmobiles, pontoons, marine
propulsion systems, and all-terrain and utility vehicles, as well
as engines for karts, motorcycles, and recreational aircrafts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-7229
Fax: (412) 281-4229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
CACV OF COLORADO: Romy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CACV of Colorado,
LLC. The case is styled as Maurice Romy, on behalf of himself
individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CACV
of Colorado, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07018 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
CACV of Colorado is a third party collection agency headquartered
in Greenville, South Carolina that purchases delinquent consumer
accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
Fagenson & Puglisi
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
New York, NY 10123
Phone: (212) 268-2128
Fax: (212) 268-2127
Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com
CARRIZO OIL: Plaintiffs in Andre Class Suit Drop Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action, Andre v.
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-08064 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 28, 2019), have filed separate notices of voluntary dismissal
of their claims.
In separate notices dated November 20, 2019, plaintiff Ertan
Barucic and plaintiff James Umland voluntarily dropped their claims
without prejudice.
In a notice dated September 13, 2019, John Andre voluntarily
dismissed, without prejudice, his claims against all Defendant.
The case was re-opened Nov. 19, 2019, but terminated the next day.
Judge Victor Marrero, who presided over the case, said, "The Clerk
of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions in this
action and to close this case."
Defendants have filed neither an answer nor a motion for summary
judgment as to the claims of Consolidated Plaintiff in the
Consolidated Action.
On July 14, 2019, Callon Petroleum Company, a Delaware corporation,
and Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., a Texas corporation, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, providing for Callon's acquisition of
Carrizo. The merger agreement provides that, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in therein, Carrizo will merge
with and into Callon, with Callon as the surviving corporation.
On October 9, 2019, Carrizo filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") a joint proxy statement/prospectus for the
solicitation of proxies in connection with the special meetings of
Callon's shareholders and Carrizo's shareholders, each to be held
on November 14, 2019, to vote upon, among other things, on matters
necessary to complete the Merger (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus").
Carrizo Oil said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on November 5, 2019, that following
the public announcement of the merger, five purported shareholders
of Carrizo filed five individual complaints against Carrizo and the
directors of Carrizo, and three purported shareholders of Carrizo
filed three putative federal class action complaints on behalf of
themselves and all owners of Carrizo common stock (other than
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against Carrizo and
the directors of Carrizo.
Another purported shareholder of Carrizo filed an individual
complaint against Carrizo, Callon and the directors of Carrizo, and
two purported shareholders of Carrizo filed two putative federal
class action complaints on behalf of themselves and all owners of
Carrizo common stock (other than defendants and related or
affiliated persons) against Carrizo, Callon and the directors of
Carrizo.
In addition, a purported shareholder of Callon filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of himself and all owners of
Callon common stock against the directors of Callon. The twelve
complaints (collectively referred to as the "Shareholder Actions")
are captioned as follows:
John Andre v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-08064-VM, Ertan Barucic v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-08185-VM, James Umland v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-08224-VM, Ertan Barucic v. Carrizo Oil &
Gas, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-03405, Murray Budd v. Carrizo
Oil & Gas, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-08391-VM, Mohammad
Siddiqui v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01726-LPS, Camille Sarrasin v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-08633-VM, Carole Sawyer v. Carrizo Oil & Gas,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-08677-VM, Shiva Stein v. Carrizo Oil
& Gas, Inc., Callon Petroleum Company et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01599-LPS, Eric Sabatini v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., Callon
Petroleum Company et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01644-CFC, Manoj
Fernandes v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., Callon Petroleum Company et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01658-LPS, and Desmond Davis et al. v. L.
Richard Flury et al., Case No. 2019-0811.
On September 9, 2019, the Andre Action, the Barucic Action, the
Umland Action and the Budd Action were consolidated under the Andre
Action, Case No. 1:19-cv-08064-VM. In addition, on September 20,
2019, the Andre Action, the Sarrasin Action and the Sawyer Action
were consolidated under the Andre Action, Case No. 1:19-cv-08064-VM
(the "Consolidated Action").
The Barucic Class Action and the Consolidated Action allege that,
among other things, the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on August 20, 2019 omits
material information with respect to the merger, rendering it false
and misleading and thus that Carrizo and the directors of Carrizo
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act.
The Barucic Class Action, the Siddiqui Action and the Consolidated
Action further allege that the directors of Carrizo violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Stein Action, the Sabatini Action and the Fernandes Action
allege that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed
with the SEC on August 20, 2019 omits material information with
respect to the merger, rendering it false and misleading and thus
that Carrizo, Callon and the directors of Carrizo violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange
Act.
The Stein Action, the Sabatini Action and the Fernandes Action
further allege that the directors of Carrizo and Callon violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Davis Action alleges that
the directors of Callon failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger by failing to disclose all material
information.
The complaints seek injunctive relief enjoining the merger, damages
and costs, among other remedies. It is possible that additional,
similar complaints may be filed or the complaints described above
are amended. If this occurs, Callon and Carrizo do not intend to
announce the filing of each additional, similar complaint or any
amended complaint unless it contains materially new or different
allegations.
Although neither Callon nor Carrizo can predict the outcome of or
estimate the possible loss or range of loss from these matters,
Callon and Carrizo believe that these complaints are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend them.
Callon and Carrizo believe that no supplemental disclosures are
required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
Shareholder Actions delaying the merger and to minimize the expense
of defending the Shareholder Actions, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Callon and Carrizo are voluntarily making
certain disclosures below that supplement those contained in the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Nothing shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth. To the contrary, Callon
and Carrizo specifically deny all allegations in the foregoing
complaints, including that any additional disclosure was or is
required.
A copy of the supplemental statement is available at
https://bit.ly/2QNUuCv.
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. explores for and produces natural gas and
crude oil. The Company develops and exploits onshore properties.
Carrizo Oil & Gas serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Suit over Vectren Merger Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. 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
plaintiffs' appeal from a ruling in the consolidated class action
suit related to its merger deal with Vectren Corp. is still
pending.
On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint
Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired
Vectren for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the Merger Date,
Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy.
With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits
were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of
Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.
These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy
Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because
it omitted material information concerning the Merger.
In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint. In December 2018, two plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits.
In September 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice, which the plaintiffs appealed in October 2019.
The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims
raised.
CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and
energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural
gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support.
CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.
CENTURY 21: Bid to Dismiss Valdes' TCPA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned JORGE VALDES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE, LLC,
Defendant, Civ. No. 2:19-05411 (D.N.J.).
Plaintiff Jorge Valdes brings this putative class action against
Defendant Century 21 Real Estate, LLC (Century 21) for violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Valdes
alleges that Century 21 controls realtors' marketing by means of
its training programs through which Century 21 directs realtors to
(1) buy leads associated with real estate listings that have
expired or otherwise been removed from multiple listing services
and (2) cold call those leads using an autodialer without consent.
Century 21 filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal
of a complaint if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
To assert a claim under the TCPA's autodialer provision, a
plaintiff must show that the defendant: (1) called her cell phone
(2) using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) (3) without
her prior express consent.
Section 227(c) provides that any person who has received more than
one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of
the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under
this subsection may may bring a private action based on a violation
of said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone
subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone
solicitations to which they object.
Century 21 argues that Valdes fails to state a claim under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(B)(1)(A)(iii) because he fails to allege that
any of the twelve calls he received were made using an automatic
telephone dialing system. Century 21 argues that Valdes fails to
state a claim under 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d) because:
(1) Valdes does not allege that he received calls on his
residential telephone line.
(2) Valdes pleads with insufficient factual detail that he
notified callers that he was on the do-not-call list.
(3) Valdes does not allege any facts suggesting that subsequent
calls he received after requesting to be placed on the do-not-call
list were from the same franchisee or business entity as those
calls he received prior to that request.
Autodialer Claim
To state a claim under the TCPA's autodialer provision, a plaintiff
must plausibly allege, among other things, that he was called on
his cellular telephone number using an autodialer. At this stage of
the proceedings, a TCPA plaintiff sufficiently alleges that calls
were made using an autodialer by identifying circumstances
surrounding the calls that create a plausible inference of
autodialing, including: their commercial content, that multiple
calls were made to the same recipient; and that they were made
without the recipient's consent.
Here, Plaintiff alleges with regard to the calls he received
marketing Century 21 realty services that they were commercial,
that he received multiple similar calls, they were made without
Plaintiff's consent notwithstanding his having previously demanded
that realtors marketing Century 21 realty services stop calling
him, and that other consumers received similar calls under similar
circumstances.
Plaintiff also alleges that two of the realtors that called him
stated that they obtained Plaintiff's telephone number from RedX,
which is a company that sells lists of leads that are configured to
be loaded into a number of different autodialers that have the
capacity to store and automatically dial all of the numbers from
the list without human intervention, and that dial multiple numbers
from the list at the same time, and Century 21's realtors have been
trained in the use of autodialers.
Thus, Valdes' autodialer TCPA claim is facially plausible and
Century 21 is sufficiently on notice.
Internal Do Not Call Claim
The TCPA prohibits solicitous calls to cell phone and landline
numbers by or on behalf of a company that does not implement
sufficient policies and procedures for maintaining an internal list
of consumers that have requested not to be called an internal do
not call list.
Residential Number
Century 21 argues that Plaintiff fails to allege an internal do not
call list claim because Plaintiff does not allege that his cellular
telephone number was a residential number. Plaintiff pleads that
he registered his cellular phone number on the DNC and that his
cellular phone number is not associated with a business.
In a 2003 Report and Order, the FCC made clear that, under the
TCPA, wireless telephone subscribers should be presumed to be
residential subscribers.
Century 21 argues that this presumption should only be construed to
apply to the request to be placed on the do-not-call list and that
further proof of residential status may be required if enforcement
action is taken.
The Court finds that in light of the FCC guidance stating that it
is more consistent with the overall intent of the TCPA to allow
wireless subscribers to benefit from the full range of TCPA
protections, it is sufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) that Valdes has
alleged that his cellular telephone number was not used for a
business purpose.
Sufficiency of Internal Do Not Call Claim
Pursuant to subsection (5) of 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d), a residential
subscriber's do-not-call request shall apply to the particular
business entity making the call or on whose behalf a call is made
and will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer
reasonably would expect them to be included given the
identification of the caller and the product being advertised.
Century 21 contends that Valdes does not allege any facts
supporting a conclusion that any subsequent calls he received were
from the same franchisee or business entity as the calls he
received prior to requesting to be placed on the do-not-call list.
It is sufficient that Valdes alleges that he received two or more
calls on behalf of Century 21 more than 30 days after he told
Century 21 realtors that he did not want to receive calls marketing
Century 21 realty services.
Agency Relationship Between Century 21 and Franchisees
Three theories of agency may support vicarious liability in the
TCPA context: (1) actual authority (2) apparent authority and (3)
ratification.
Century 21 contends that Valdes fails to sufficiently allege any
facts that would plausibly give rise to vicarious liability against
Century 21.
Actual Authority
Actual authority is the authority that a principal expressly or
implicitly gives an agent. An agent acts with actual authority if
it reasonably believes, in accordance with the principal's
manifestations to the agent, that the principal wishes the agent so
to act.
For a TCPA claim, a plaintiff sufficiently pleads that a defendant
directed a realtor's calls by alleging that the caller expressly
mentioned the defendant by name, that the defendant had the
authority to revise call scripts or provide feedback regarding
calls, that the defendant had the authority to provide lead lists,
that the defendant was aware that an autodialer was being used
and/or other facts giving rise to an inference that the defendant
was heavily involved in the sales practices and marketing
procedures.
Plaintiff alleges that Century 21 was heavily involved in realtors'
unsolicited calls. Valdes contends that through the its training
techniques, Century 21 in effect directed realtors to solicit
business for Century 21's and the realtors' common benefit by
purchasing lists of leads associated with expired listings and
similar properties and calling them repeatedly with an autodialer.
Valdes has pleaded with sufficient specificity that Century 21 is
vicariously liable based on an actual authority theory.
Apparent Authority
Apparent authority arises when a third-party reasonably believes
that the agent had authority to act on behalf of the principal and
that belief can be traced to the principal's own manifestations.
Here, Plaintiff sufficiently pleads Century 21's vicarious
liability predicated on apparent authority and ratification
theories based on the same allegations supporting an actual
authority theory, including that realtors identified themselves as
calling from Century 21 during calls, that Century 21 provided
instruction regarding call content and frequency, and that Century
21 facilitated realtors' access to lead lists and dialers to call
them with.
Accordingly, Century 21's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y37gkgpu from Leagle.com
JORGE VALDES, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by STEFAN LOUIS COLEMAN, 1072
Madison Avenue, Suite 1 Lakewood, NJ 08701.
CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE, LLC, A New Jersey Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER ANN GUIDEA –
jguidea@grsm.com - GORDON REES LLP, RONALD A. GILLER –
rmiller@grsm.com -, GORDON & REES LLP & RANDOLPH ANDREW SCOTT -
rscott@grsm.com - GORDON & REES LLP.
COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Munsell Files Fraud Class Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colgate Palmolive
Company, et al. The case is styled as Angela Munsell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Colgate-Palmolive In Colgate Palmolive Company, Tom's of Maine,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12512-GAO (D. Mass., Dec. 13, 2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer
products company focused on the production, distribution and
provision of household, health care, and personal care
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
Two Seaport Lane, 6th Flr.
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 439-3939
Fax: (617) 439-0134
Email: astewart@shulaw.com
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Sportswear
Company. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Columbia Sportswear
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07007 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13,
2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Columbia Sportswear Company is an American company that
manufactures and distributes outerwear, sportswear, and footwear,
as well as headgear, camping equipment, ski apparel, and outerwear
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
CORREVIO PHARMA: Faces Feierstein Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Feierstein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CORREVIO PHARMA CORP., MARK H.N. CORRIGAN, WILLIAM
HUNTER, and JUSTIN A. RENZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-11361 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
12, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons other than Defendants,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Correvio securities between
October 23, 2018, and December 5, 2019, both dates inclusive,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company's portfolio of marketed brands comprise, among others,
vernakalant IV, or Brinavess, for the rapid conversion of recent
onset atrial fibrillation (AF) to sinus rhythm. Earlier during
Brinavess's development, safety concerns led the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to decline approval for Brinavess after a patient
with no apparent heart issues had died after being administered the
drug during one of its clinical trials. The FDA then mandated a
clinical hold on the Brinavess program, which remains in effect in
the U.S. Correvio's SEC filings would later characterize the
patient death that precipitated the clinical hold as "a single
unexpected serious adverse event of cardiogenic shock experienced
by a patient with AF who received vernakalant (IV)."
On October 23, 2018, Correvio announced its intention to resubmit a
New Drug Application (NDA) for Brinavess to the FDA for recent
onset AF, which followed additional purported safety data the
Company had accumulated, as well as discussions with the FDA
regarding the drug's potential regulatory path forward. The Company
later announced on July 25, 2019, that the FDA had accepted the
Resubmitted NDA.
The Plaintiff contends that during the Class Period, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the data supporting the Resubmitted NDA for Brinavess did
not minimize the significant health and safety issues observed in
connection with the drug's original NDA; (ii) the foregoing
substantially diminished the likelihood that the FDA would approve
the Resubmitted NDA; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On December 6, 2019, FDA staffers reviewing Brinavess announced
that they did not believe that the drug's benefits outweighed its
risks. Specifically, the FDA noted that Brinavess was associated
with "serious liabilities" including low blood pressure, irregular
heartbeats in the lower heart chambers, and death.
On this news, Correvio's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or
39.81%, to close at $1.30 per share on December 6, 2019. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Correvio securities at artificially inflated
prices.
Correvio is a specialty pharmaceutical company that engages in
developing therapeutics worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
CTA PIZZA: Court Approves $27K FLSA Class Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Settlement Approval in the case captioned
JAMES CALL, Plaintiff, v. CTA PIZZA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00696 (S.D. Ohio).
Plaintiff James Call delivers pizzas for a Domino's franchised
restaurant. He brought this case on behalf of himself and similarly
situated drivers to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio law against the Domino's franchisee
he works for, CTA Pizza, Inc., Donald L. Smith, Jr., and Paula J.
Smith.
The parties have agreed to settle this matter for $27,000. The
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable because it provides
substantial compensation to Plaintiff, but also recognizes the
risk, uncertainty, and expense of going forward with arbitration.
From this settlement amount, $11,720.90 will be paid to Plaintiff
as reimbursement for expenses incurred, and $5,860.45 will be paid
to Plaintiff on a Form W-2. Pursuant to Plaintiff's contingency fee
agreement with his counsel, a third check will be issued to
Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $9,418.65 for attorneys' fees
and costs. In exchange, Plaintiff will dismiss his lawsuit with
prejudice as to him only, leaving other employees to pursue their
claims separately if they so desire.
The Court's role in approving an FLSA settlement, and presumably an
Ohio wage and hour settlement, is comparable to that of a court in
a settlement of a class action brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23. Hence, the Court must ensure that there is a bona fide dispute
between the parties and that the settlement is a product of
arms-length negotiation that was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Whether there was a Bona Fide Dispute Between the Parties
The requirement that there be a bona fide dispute between the
parties stems from the need to ensure the parties are not
negotiating around the FLSA's requirements concerning wages and
overtime. At the heart of this case is whether Plaintiff is
entitled to reimbursement for his pizza delivery expenses. As
Plaintiff attests, both sides could present arguments to support a
wide range of reimbursement rates, which would have involved
extensive expert testimony.
Given this dispute, the Court is satisfied that the Proposed
Settlement Agreement is not an attempt to negotiate around the
FLSA's mandatory requirements of compensating employees for unpaid
wages.
Whether Negotiations were Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate
In determining whether a proposed FLSA settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, a district court is required to consider
and balance several factors: (a) Plaintiffs' likelihood of ultimate
success on the merits balanced against the amount and form of
relief offered in settlement (b) the complexity, expense and likely
duration of the litigation (c) the stage of the proceedings and the
amount of discovery completed (d) the judgment of experienced trial
counsel (e) the nature of the negotiations (f) the objections, if
any, raised by the class members and (g) the public interest.
Here, the Court finds that the balance of factors weighs in favor
of approving the Proposed Settlement Agreement.
Likelihood of Success
The most important factor the Court must consider in approving an
FLSA settlement is Plaintiff's probability of success on the
merits, particularly when weighed against the recovery provided in
the proposed settlement agreement. The lower the likelihood of
success, the more desirable a settlement.
Here, Plaintiff maintains that the likelihood of success on the
merits of his claims was far from certain. Although there is no
dispute that Defendants were required to reimburse Plaintiff for
his delivery expenses, the parties were at an impasse as to whether
Defendants had fulfilled this obligation. Namely, the parties
disagreed about the appropriate reimbursement rate that applied.
Resolving this issue would have involved a battle of expert
witnesses.
The Court finds that this first factor weighs in favor of
approval.
Complexity and Expense of Litigation
The second factor the Court must consider is the complexity and
expense of potential litigation. As Plaintiff represents, this case
would have come down to a battle of expert witnesses. Hence, the
parties would have needed to conduct substantial discovery and
expend many resources to hire and retain these experts.
The Proposed Settlement Agreement eliminates this burden, and
therefore, weighs in favor of approval.
Stage of Proceedings
This next factor is intended to ensure Plaintiff has had access to
the information needed to adequately assess his case and the
desirability of the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Here, the
parties reached a settlement in the early stages of this case
roughly five months after Plaintiff filed his Complaint.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants provided him with
his driving and reimbursement records, which allowed him to
estimate the amount of damages he suffered. In light of this, the
Court deems it appropriate to defer to the judgment of experienced
trial counsel with regard to the evaluation of the strength of the
case and the desirability of settlement at this state of the
proceeding.
Judgment of Experienced Counsel
By agreeing to this settlement, both Plaintiff and Defendants'
counsel have indicated their shared belief that the Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court gives accords weight to
the belief of experienced counsel.
Nature of Negotiations
Before approving an FLSA settlement, the Court must be convinced
that the parties Proposed Settlement Agreement is non-collusive and
the product of arms-length negotiations. Here, the parties
represent that they reached the settlement after numerous
discussions, exchanges of information, and additional negotiations.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants provided him with his driving
and reimbursement records, which he, in turn, used to estimate his
damages. ( Given these representations, the Court concludes that
the Proposed Settlement Agreement is a product of arms-length
negotiations.
Objections by Class Members
In evaluating an FLSA settlement agreement, the Court is required
to consider the objections, if any, raised by class members. Here,
Plaintiff is settling only the claims brought on behalf of himself.
Other employees affected by Defendants' policies are free to bring
their claims separately, if they so desire.
Public Interest
The final factor the Court must consider is whether the public
interest would be served by settlement. Because the parties'
Proposed Settlement Agreement would end potentially long and
protracted litigation, the Court finds that this factor weighs in
favor of approval.
In sum, each of the seven fairness factors weigh in favor of
approving the parties' Proposed Settlement Agreement.
Whether the Attorneys' Fees Award is Reasonable
The Sixth Circuit has held that an award of attorneys' fees must be
reasonable, meaning it must be one that is adequate to attract
competent counsel, but does not produce windfalls to attorneys.
Courts within this circuit have found that a fee representing
one-third of the total settlement amount is reasonable.
Here, the parties' Proposed Settlement Agreement would afford
Plaintiff's counsel $8,700 in attorneys' fees, amounting to roughly
one-third of the total settlement amount. The Settlement Agreement
also provides for the payment of $718.65 in expenses. The Court
finds that these are reasonable amounts in light of the work
performed and the result obtained.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Settlement Approval and DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3janus4 from
Leagle.com
James Call, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller - abiller@billerkimble.com
- Biller & Kimble, LLC & Andrew P. Kimble , Biller & Kimble, LLC Of
Counsel, 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650, Cincinnati, OH 45209
CTA Pizza, Inc., Donald L. Smith, Jr. & Paula J. Smith, Defendants,
represented by Mathew A. Parker -mparker@fisherphillips.com -
Fisher & Phillips LLP.
DANONE US: Sued by Cartelli for Mislabeling Vanilla Soy Creamer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Cartelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Danone US, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-11354 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
12, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the
Defendant's misleading representations on the packaging of their
vanilla flavored soy-based coffee creamer products.
The Product's front label identifies it as a "Dairy-Free Soy
Creamer" and the front and side panels make direct representations
with respect to its primary recognizable and characterizing flavor,
by the word "Vanilla" and/or vignette. Since vanilla is the only
flavor with its own standard of identity, its labeling is
controlled not by the general flavor regulations but by the
standards for vanilla ingredients. This means that if a product is
represented as being characterized by vanilla yet also contains
non-vanilla vanillin, the label and packaging must declare the
presence of vanillin and identify it as an artificial flavor. The
front label (1) represents the Product's characterizing flavor is
vanilla and (2) the absence of any qualifying terms confirms to
consumers they contain a sufficient amount of the characterizing
food ingredient, vanilla (flavoring or extract) to independently
flavor the Products.
The representations are misleading because the Product does not
contain the amount, type and/or percentage of vanilla as a
component of its flavoring, which is required by law and consistent
with consumer expectations, the Plaintiff alleges. Had the
Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have
bought the Product or would have paid less for it. The Product
contains other representations which are misleading and deceptive.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $5.39 per 32 FL
OZ, excluding tax--compared to other similar products represented
in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal
use and consumption.
Danone US, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells soy-based coffee creamer products purporting to be flavored
exclusively with vanilla under their Silk brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Warner Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DIVERSIFIED
CONSULTANTS, INC. et al. The case is styled as Daniel Warner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05875-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Diversified Consultants, Inc. is one of the nation's collection
agencies. The Company offers pre-collection, claims adjustment, bad
debt management, third party transfer, and client access
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC
1800 John F Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
DONALD J. TRUMP: Court Tosses Cobb Complaint on Technicality
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HOMER DOUGLAS COBB, IV, the
Plaintiff, vs. DONALD J. TRUMP, MICHAEL R. PENCE, GEORGIA LOTTERY
CORPORATION, STATE OF GEORGIA, BRIAN P. KEMP, GRETCHEN CORBIN,
STATE OF ALABAMA, and KAY IVY, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00066-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered
an order on Oct. 28, 2019, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice, because he did not properly serve Defendants a copy of
the summons and complaint within the time period specified in the
Court's Show Cause Order and because he did not show good cause for
failing to do so.
The Court said Plaintiff never filed proof that Defendants signed
the waiver of summons and complaint or otherwise agreed to waive
formal service. Although Plaintiff filed a "waiver of service" with
the Court on June 21, 2019, that document did not contain any of
Defendants' signatures. Merely filing a blank waiver of service
with the Court and mailing Defendants a waiver of service did not
relieve Plaintiff of his responsibility to properly serve
Defendants a copy of the summons and complaint.[CC]
DR MARTENS: Camacho Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr Martens Airwair
USA LLC. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dr Martens Airwair
USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07009 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13,
2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Dr. Martens Airwair USA LLC manufactures and markets footwear. The
Company offers shoes and sandals for men and women.[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
EASTER SEALS: Lanza Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgardo Lanza, and other similarly situated individuals v. EASTER
SEALS SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-25128-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 12, 2019), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff asserts he worked in excess of 40 hours every week,
but he was paid for just 40 regular hours. The Plaintiff was not
paid for a minimum of 4.5 overtime hours weekly. The Defendants
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of
time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in
excess of 40, in violation of FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance
employee.
EASTER SEALS is a non-profit provider of health and human services
to children and adults with physical and mental disabilities and
special needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EAZE SOLUTIONS: Court OKs Arbitration in Williams' TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned FARRAH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v.
EAZE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 3:18-cv-02598-JD, (N.D.
Cal.).
In this putative class action, plaintiff Farrah Williams alleges
that defendant Eaze Solutions violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), by sending her unsolicited, autodialed text
messages. The parties do not dispute the salient facts. Eaze
operates a marijuana mobile application (app) and online
marketplace. The app facilitates the delivery of cannabis products
from dispensaries to consumers. Williams signed up for Eaze's
service. Before creating her Eaze account, Williams checked a box
consenting to Eaze's terms of service.
Eaze seeks to compel arbitration of Williams' claims pursuant to
its terms of service.
While the case raises interesting issues about "ganjapreneurship"
and the budding legal marijuana industry, the questions presently
before the Court are limited to whether there was an agreement to
arbitrate and, if so, whether the Court or an arbitrator decides
the arbitrability of plaintiff's claims.
After an initial set of briefing on the motion to compel and oral
argument, the Court called for supplemental submissions from the
parties on the application of Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v.
Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006). In light of the Court's request for
supplemental briefing, Williams's motion for leave to file a
sur-reply on similar topics, Dkt. No. 25, is denied. Eaze's motion
to compel arbitration is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
The parties disagree about the governing legal standards. Eaze says
that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies for two reasons: (1)
the terms of service state that the Federal Arbitration Act will
govern the interpretation and enforcement of its dispute resolution
provisions and (2) the contract involves interstate commerce as
contemplated by the FAA.
Williams contends that California law controls because: (1) the
terms of service state the parties' agreement will be governed by
the laws of the State of California and (2) the contract does not
involve interstate commerce.
The TCPA allegations in the complaint also depend on the presence
of interstate commerce. The TCPA was passed under Congress's
Commerce Clause power.
Williams alleges Eaze has violated the TCPA by harassing her with
text messages, and she seeks to represent a nationwide class. The
federal and nationwide claims in this case again require that Eaze
be engaged in interstate commerce.
Consequently, the FAA controls. The parties could have agreed
otherwise, but they did not do so. The terms of service expressly
state that the Federal Arbitration Act will govern the
interpretation and enforcement of the dispute resolution section.
While the contract contains a more general choice-of-law provision
that opts for California law, it is the specific provision
designating the FAA that governs arbitration.
CONTRACT FORMATION
The parties dispute yet again what law should be used to resolve
the contract formation question. Eaze says that, under the FAA, the
issue should be delegated to an arbitrator.
Williams says that California law controls, and that the
agreement's unlawful object to facilitate marijuana distribution
and use means a contract was never formed.
Starting with Williams's position, it is important to understand
that, under California law, a contract that has an unlawful object
is deemed void and unenforceable, not that it was never formed.
Williams argues California Civil Code Section 1550, which states
that it is essential to the existence of a contract that there
should be: (1) Parties capable of contracting (2) Their consent (3)
A lawful object and, (4) A sufficient cause or consideration, means
no contract was ever formed. She also cites an unpublished
California Court of Appeal decision equating these factors with
contract formation principles.
But the California Code and decisions by the state Supreme Court
critically undermine Williams's argument. These sources, some of
which Williams herself cites, definitively establish that the
consequence under California law of an unlawful object is not that
a contract was not formed, but that the contract cannot be
enforced. Williams mentions some arguably different opinions by
California appellate courts and federal courts, but they are not
controlling authorities.
Eaze's argument takes a step further to suggest that the Supreme
Court has applied substantive federal law to determine whether an
issue is nondelegable. On this view, questions going to whether a
contract has been concluded are limited to whether a contract was
signed, whether the signor had authority, and whether the signor
possessed the mental capacity to assent and do not include issues
related to legality.
But the Court need not decide whether California or federal law
determines the effect of a contract's illegality because the answer
is the same under both regimes. No other formation challenges are
presented here.
THE DELEGATION CLAUSE
The parties agreed to arbitrate threshold issues concerning the
arbitration agreement. Under the Supreme Court's decision in
Rent-A-Center, Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 72. Williams must
challenge the delegation provision itself since any challenge to
the validity of the Agreement as a whole is for the arbitrator.
Here, the arbitration clause provides that any dispute, claim or
controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the
breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity
thereof or the use of the Service or Application (Disputes) will be
settled by binding arbitration. There is no challenge to the
delegation provision here and, so the Court will treat it as valid
under Section 2, and must enforce it under Sections 3 and 4,
leaving any challenge to the validity of the Agreement as a whole
for the arbitrator.
The Court declines to consider whether the arbitration clause
itself is unconscionable because that question was delegated under
the terms of service, and Williams did not challenge the
delegation.
Therefore, Eaze's motion to compel arbitration of Williams's claims
is granted. The case is dismissed.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s October 21, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5h3erns from Leagle.com
Farrah Williams, Plaintiff, represented by David William Hall -
dhall@hedinhall.com - Hedin Hall LLP & Frank S. Hedin -
fhedin@hedinhall.com - Hedin Hall LLP.
Eaze Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert Quoc Giang ,
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP & Michael Dietz Roth , Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP, 725 S Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA
90017.
EDSAL MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELISEO LARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. EDSAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13198 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks
to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.
According to the complaint, while most establishments and employers
use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge
swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant mandated and required that
employees have finger(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.
Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's
employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible
privacy risks.
For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed--such as in the recent Equifax, Uber, Face book/
Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or
misuses--employees have no means by which to prevent identity
theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of
this highly personal and private information.
In 2015, a data breach at the United States Office of Personnel
Management exposed the personal identification information,
including biometric data, of over 21.5 million federal employees,
contractors, and job applicants. U.S. Off. of Personnel Mgmt.,
Cybersecurity Incidents (2018), available at
www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-incidents, the lawsuit
says.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois. While doing so,
the Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois.
Edsal Manufacturing manufactures steel products. The company offers
bulk racks, industrial shelving, lockers, storage cabinets,
workplace furniture, material handling, and office products. Edsal
Manufacturing operates in Chicago, Illinois and markets products
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: 314-833-4825
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
ELECTROLUX HOME: Obertman Sues Over Defective Dehumidifiers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Felix Obertman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELECTROLUX HOME CARE PRODUCTS, INC., Case No.
2:19-at-01164 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2019), arises from the defect in
design of certain Frigidaire dehumidifiers.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant on behalf of similarly
situated purchasers of the Products for violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law; fraud; unjust enrichment; breach of implied
warranty; violation of California's False Advertising Law; and
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
This is a class action against the Defendant for the manufacture
and sale of certain Frigidaire Dehumidifiers, including model
numbers FFAD3033R1, FFAD5033R1, FFAD7033R1, (collectively, the
"Products"), all of which suffer from an identical defect in
design. Specifically, the Products' defective design causes the
Products to display an "F0" error message on the Products' control
panel. This defect renders the Products completely useless, the
Plaintiff contends.
The F0 Error Message defect manifested in the Product approximately
one year after the Plaintiff purchased it. The Plaintiff threw the
Product in the trash because it was useless. The Plaintiff disposed
of the Product long before he ever contemplated litigation. The
Plaintiff reviewed the Product's packaging prior to purchase.
The Defendant disclosed on the packaging that the Products were
dehumidifiers and described features typical of dehumidifiers but
did not disclose the defect. Had there been a disclosure, the
Plaintiff would not have bought the Product because the defect
would have been material to him, or at the very least, he would
have purchased the product at a substantially reduced price, says
the complaint.
Plaintiff Mr. Obertman purchased a Frigidaire Dehumidifier bearing
model number FFAD7033R1 from a Best Buy store located in Elk Grove,
California, for approximately $400.
Electrolux is a worldwide leading manufacturer of home appliance
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
EVENTBRITE INC: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Due Jan. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, 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 deadline for an
amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re
Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No, 19-CIV-02798,
is January 10, 2020.
Beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the company
filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the company's executives and directors, and its
underwriters for the initial public offering (IPO). Some of these
actions also name as defendants venture capital firms that were
investors in the Company as of the IPO.
On June 24, 2019, the state court consolidated two state actions
pending at that time. The consolidated state case is entitled In re
Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No, 19-CIV-02798.
On July 24, 2019, the two plaintiffs in the State Action filed a
consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint generally
alleges that the Company misrepresented and/or omitted material
information in the company's IPO offering documents, in violation
of the Securities Act of 1933.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased the company's common
stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.
On August 23, 2019, defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated
complaint.
A third state-court action was filed on August 23, 2019.
On September 11, 2019, that complaint was consolidated into the
operative complaint filed on July 24, 2019, and the court ordered
that the arguments in defendants' pending demurrers would apply to
that newly filed complaint. At the hearing on defendants' demurrers
on November 1, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to
amend.
The deadline for an amended complaint is January 10, 2020.
Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows
anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable events
ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music
festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
EVENTBRITE INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for March 26
----------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, 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 hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re
Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, 5:19-cv-02019-EJD, is set
for March 26, 2020.
Beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the company
filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the company's executives and directors, and its
underwriters for the initial public offering (IPO). Some of these
actions also name as defendants venture capital firms that were
investors in the Company as of the IPO.
On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending
actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The
consolidated federal case is entitled In re Eventbrite, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 5:19-cv-02019-EJD.
On October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action
filed their amended consolidated complaint. The amended complaint
generally alleges that the Company misrepresented and/or omitted
material information in the company's IPO offering documents, in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The amended complaint also
challenges public statements made after the IPO in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of
investors who purchased the company's common stock issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents, or between
September 20, 2018 and May 1, 2019, inclusive.
The hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss is set for March
26, 2020.
Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows
anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable events
ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music
festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
EXXON MOBIL: Key Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Theodore M. Key, Thomas
E. Wheeler, Fitzgerald Farms, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Exxon Mobil Corporation,
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, XTO Energy, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-00424-RAW (E.D. Okla., Dec. 13, 2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Exxon Mobil Corporation operates petroleum and petrochemicals
businesses on a worldwide basis. The Company operations include
exploration and production of oil and gas, electric power
generation, and coal and minerals operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan Edward Bradford, Esq.
Lanier Law Firm (OKC)
431 W Main St, Ste D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 698-2700
Fax: (405) 234-5506
Email: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
FIRST IMPRESSION: Hobbs Suit Moved From N.D. Georgia to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Keith Hobbs and Terry Fabricant,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. First Impression Interactive, Inc.; Randall-Reilly, LLC; Uber
Technologies, Inc.; and Yodel Technologies, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 4:19cv00009-CDL, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 20, 2019.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07671 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Martha M. Pacold.
First Impression Interactive is an online marketing platform that
connects buyers and sellers every day through intelligent lead
generation. Randall-Reilly LLC. Randall-Reilly, LLC provides media
and information solutions.
Uber Technologies, commonly known as Uber, is an American
multinational ride-hailing company offering services that include
peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and
a micromobility system with electric bikes and scooters.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
E-mail: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com
FITBIT INC: Flynn Files Securities Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitbit, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Tim Flynn, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Fitbit, Inc., James Park,
Eric N. Friedman, Laura J. Alber, Matthew Bronberg, Glenda
Flanagan, Bradley M. Fluegel, Steven Murray, Christopher Paisley,
Magnoliophyta Inc., Google LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02270-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Securities Exchange Act.
Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San Francisco,
California. Its products are activity trackers, wireless-enabled
wearable technology devices that measure data such as the number of
steps walked, heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and
other personal metrics involved in fitness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
FITBIT INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for Jan. 8
----------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, 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 hearing on the motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, is set to
be heard on January 8, 2020.
On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended arising out of alleged
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and full fiscal year 2016
that was provided during the third and fourth quarters of 2016.
On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was
filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same
defendants.
On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24,
2019. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and
certain officers relating to the Company's 2016 guidance, on behalf
of a putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from
August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017.
Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.
On August 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The
hearing is scheduled for January 8, 2020.
Fitbit said, "The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this
litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter."
Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
FITBIT INC: Settlement Inked in Heart Rate Tracking Device Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, 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 parties in the litigation
over the Company's PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking device have
entered into a settlement.
On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the
PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology does not consistently
and accurately record users' heart rates.
Plaintiffs allege common law claims, as well as violations of
various states' false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer
protection statutes, and seek class certification, injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution, unspecified compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties and
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.
On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated master class
action complaint, and on May 19, 2016, they filed an amended
consolidated master class action complaint.
On January 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration. On October 11, 2017, the court granted the motion to
compel arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,
and that motion was denied on January 24, 2018.
On February 20, 2018, a second amended consolidated master class
action complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiff Rob Dunn, the
only plaintiff not ordered to arbitration, as a purported class
action.
The complaint alleges the same common law claims as the prior class
actions, as well as violations of false advertising, unfair
competition, and consumer protection statutes of California and
Arizona. The complaint seeks class certification, injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution, unspecified compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties and
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.
On March 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and separately moved to strike the class
allegations. The court dismissed the claims for revocation of
acceptance, violation of California's Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment, but allowed the remaining
claims pending amendment to the complaint with further details.
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on June 19, 2018. The
court granted the Company's motion to strike and ordered the
plaintiff to amend to make clear that he is seeking to represent a
class of opt-outs only, but added that plaintiff may amend in the
event the Company's arbitration agreement is found to be
unenforceable.
On April 3, 2018, the Company received an arbitration demand from
Kate McLellan, one of the original plaintiffs who was compelled to
arbitration.
On July 19, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement of the
lawsuit and the arbitration on confidential terms, which are not
material to the Company.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
FITBIT INC: Sleep Tracking Device Claims Deadline Due Dec. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, 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 deadline to file claims
in the Sleep Tracking Device-related litigation is due December 22,
2019.
On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised.
Plaintiffs sought class certification, restitution, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses including attorneys' fees.
On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on December
8, 2017. The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on
August 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.
At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the court denied preliminary
settlement approval without prejudice and ordered revised
settlement papers be filed.
On November 29, 2018, the court granted preliminary settlement
approval and the final approval hearing was scheduled for August 1,
2019.
On May 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request for attorneys'fees.
The Company opposed that request.
At the final approval hearing, the court indicated that it wanted
to see a larger claims rate and asked the parties to submit a
re-notice plan. On the fees request, the court offered plaintiffs
the option of either having a court-appointed accountant review all
of the challenged fees and expenses, or to accept a 90% reduction
on those.
On August 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their fee election, opting
for the 90% reduction of challenged fees and expenses. The
re-notice plan was approved on October 16, 2019, and new notices
have been sent out. The claims deadline is now December 22, 2019.
The court has not yet ruled on plaintiff's fee request.
Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
GOGO INC: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Pierrelouis" Due Dec. 20
------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo 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 plaintiffs in Pierrelouis
v. Gogo Inc., have until December 20, 2019 to file a second amended
complaint.
On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled
Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief
Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our securities from
February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
the company purporting to relate to its 2Ku antenna's reliability
and installation and remediation costs.
The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.
In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in
February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss such amended
complaint. In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss
on two independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to
plausibly allege that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with
particularity that defendants acted with scienter.
The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and
plaintiffs have until December 20, 2019 to file a second amended
complaint should they elect to do so.
The company believes that the claims are without merit and intend
to continue to defend them vigorously if the litigation continues.
In accordance with Delaware law, the company will indemnify the
individual named defendants for their defense costs and any damages
they incur in connection with the suit. The company had filed a
claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers' insurance
policy with respect to this suit.
Gogo said, "No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses
under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of
the litigation or any potential losses."
Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.
GOLDEN GATE: Faces Herndon Suit Alleging Violation of Tort Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Gate
University. The case is captioned as JOHN HERNDON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. DOES 1 TO
50 and GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY, A CALIFORNIA NON PROFIT
ORGANIZATION, Defendants, Case No. CGC19580515 (Cal. Super., Nov
13, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of tort law.
Golden Gate University is a private, non-profit, nonsectarian
university in San Francisco, California. Founded in 1901, GGU
specializes in educating professionals through its schools of law,
business, taxation, and accounting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: 310 824-3828
GRACELAND PROPERTIES: Faces Duvall Class Action in Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Graceland Properties,
LLC. The case is styled as Donald Duvall, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v.
Graceland Properties, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00196-TBR
(W.D. Ky., Dec. 13, 2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Graceland Properties, LLC was founded in 2007. The company's line
of business includes the manufacturing of concrete products from a
combination of cement and aggregate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devon N.R. Oser, Esq.
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Phone: (502) 636-4333
Email: devono@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 255-5419
Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
HC JOLIET: Faces Jackson Suit in Northern District of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Ava Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiff v. HC Joliet, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19L898,
was removed from the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Nov. 14, 2019.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07541 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Martha M. Pacold.
HC Joliet, LLC (trade name is Hollywood Casino Joliet) is in the
Casino Hotel business.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
HC Joliet, LLC is represented by:
Daniel Reza Saeedi, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 840-4316
E-mail: dsaeedi@taftlaw.com
- and -
Allison Emma Czerniak, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 840-4487
E-mail: aczerniak@taftlaw.com
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lancaster Antitrust Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Lancaster, Jeffrey Greenfield, Benjamin Allen, Brandy
Newsome, Ethel Carson, Kimberly Benjamin, David Anderson, Samuel
Bringhurst, and Nicole Laird, individually and on behalf of a Class
of all those similarly situated v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC
CO. LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL
(H.K.) CO., LTD.; NHK SPRING CO., LTD.; NHK INTERNATIONAL CORP.;
NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD.; SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD.; AND TDK
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-08122 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2019), is
brought for damages and equitable relief under state and federal
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws and the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff brings this antirust class action on behalf of
individuals and entities that indirectly purchased hard disk drive
suspension assemblies in the United States from the Defendants,
during the period beginning at least as early as May 2008 until
such time as the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct
on United States consumers of such products has ceased.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices of HDD
Suspension Assemblies sold in the United States. Because of the
Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and other Class
Members paid artificially inflated prices for HDD Suspension
Assemblies and have suffered antitrust injury to their business or
property.
The Defendants entered into agreements with each other to refrain
from price competition and allocate their respective market shares
for suspension assemblies used in HDDs. Pursuant to their
agreements not to compete, the Defendants exchanged pricing
information, including anticipated pricing quotes, which they used
to inform their negotiations with U.S. and foreign customers that
purchased suspension assemblies and produced HDDs for sale in, or
delivery to, the U.S. and elsewhere. As a direct and proximate
result of these agreements, the Defendants charged artificially
high prices for HDD Suspension Assemblies, and purchasers of
products containing HDD Suspension Assemblies paid more for those
products than they would have paid in a competitive market.
The Defendants' collusive conduct is being investigated by the
Antitrust Division of the DOJ, and by several other international
competition authorities. On July 29, 2019, the DOJ filed a
one-count charge against NHK Spring Co., Ltd. for alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased HDD Suspension Assemblies from the
Defendants.
The Defendants manufactured, marketed, sold and/or distributed HDD
Suspension Assemblies, either directly or indirectly through its
subsidiaries or affiliates, to customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mario N. Alioto, Esq.
Joseph M. Patane, Esq.
Lauren C. Capurro, Esq.
TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP
2280 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 563-7200
Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
Email: malioto@tatp.com
jpatane@tatp.com
laurenrussell@tatp.com
- and -
Sylvie K. Kern, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SYLVIE KULKIN KERN
2532 Lake Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
Phone: (415) 221-5763
Email: kernantitrustglobal@gmail.com
- and -
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., St. 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: (216) 622-1851
Cell: (216) 390-2594
Fax: (216) 241-8175
Email: dkaron@karonllc.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AK 72201
Phone: (501) 372-1300
Fax: (888) 505-0909
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWTIZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 740-1423
Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
howard@moskowitz-law.com
adams@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Fax: (515) 223-8887
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
bohlman@sagwlaw.com
- and -
Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
Jason E. Greene, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C.
50 West Broadway, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
Fax: (801) 364-7697
Email: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com
jgreene@aklawfirm.com
- and -
John L. Walker, Esq.
Kevin B. Bass, Esq.
WALKER GROUP, P.C.
P.O. Box 22849
Jackson, MS 39225-2849
Phone: (601) 948-4589
Fax: (601) 354-2507
Email: jwalker@walkergrouppc.com
kbass@walkergrouppc.com
- and -
Isaac Diel, Esq.
SHARP McQUEEN PA
Financial Plaza
6900 College Boulevard Suite 285
Overland Park, Kansas 66211
Phone: (913) 661-9931
Email: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Health Secretary Files Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET
AL., APPLICANTS v. J.D., ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, Case No. 19A246 (U.S.), is an appeal
filed before the Supreme Court of United States on Aug. 30, 2019,
from a lower court decision in Case No. 18-5093 (D.C. Cir.).
J.D.'s lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a 2017
government policy that effectively barring any unaccompanied alien
child in its custody from obtaining a pre-viability abortion.
Among the scores of persons who come to the United States each year
without lawful immigration status, several thousand are
"unaccompanied alien children." Unaccompanied alien children have
no parent or legal guardian in the United States to care for them.
They are thus committed to the custody of the federal government.
At some point, an unaccompanied minor might be released to an
approved sponsor (usually a relative) pending determination of her
entitlement to stay in the United States. If no suitable sponsor
exists, an unaccompanied minor might remain in the government's
custody for an extended period.
Certain unaccompanied alien children are pregnant when they arrive
in federal custody, after what is often a hazardous journey. Though
many carry their pregnancies to term, some desire to terminate
their pregnancies. But in 2017, the government instituted a policy
effectively barring any unaccompanied alien child in its custody
from obtaining a pre-viability abortion. This case concerns the
constitutionality of that new policy.
The policy functions as an across-the-board ban on access to
abortion. It does not matter if an unaccompanied minor meets all
the requirements to obtain an abortion under the law of the state
where she is held—including, for instance, demonstrating she is
mature enough to decide on her own whether to terminate her
pregnancy. Nor does it matter if she secures her own funding and
transportation for the procedure.
It does not even matter if her pregnancy results from rape.
Regardless, the government denies her access to an abortion. And
the government's newfound ban applies only to pregnant minors',
anyone aged 18 (or older) in immigration custody is allowed to
terminate her pregnancy. Minors alone, that is, must carry their
pregnancies to term against their wishes.
The claim of one minor in this case brings the policy's breadth and
operation into stark relief. She had been raped in her country of
origin. After her arrival here and her placement in government
custody, she learned she was pregnant as a result of the rape. She
repeatedly asked to obtain a pre-viability abortion, to no avail.
She remained in government custody as an unaccompanied minor
because there was no suitable sponsor to whom she could be
released. Nor was there any viable prospect of her returning to her
country of origin: indeed, she eventually received a grant of
asylum (and lawful status in the U.S.) due to her well-founded fear
of persecution in her country of origin. Still, the government
sought to compel this
minor to carry her rape-induced pregnancy to term. She is one of
the named plaintiffs who brought this challenge to the government's
policy on behalf of a class of pregnant unaccompanied minors.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the
plaintiffs, and the government now appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit initially agreed
with the district court that the case is not moot, and found no
abuse of discretion in the court's certification of a plaintiffs'
class consisting of pregnant unaccompanied minors in the
government's custody.
"On the merits, we sustain the district court's preliminary
injunction in principal part. Under binding Supreme Court
precedent, a person has a
constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy before fetal
viability, and the government cannot unduly burden her decision,"
the D.C. Circuit said. "The government accepts the applicability
of that settled framework to unaccompanied alien children in its
custody. Those controlling principles dictate affirming the
district 'court's preliminary injunction against the government's
blanket denial of access to abortion for unaccompanied minors."
"We are unanimous in rejecting the government's position that its
denial of abortion access can be squared with Supreme Court
precedent.
We vacate and remand, though, a separate aspect of the district
court's preliminary injunction, which bars disclosure to parents
and others of unaccompanied minors' pregnancies and abortion
decisions. That portion of the preliminary injunction, we conclude,
warrants further explication to aid appellate review."[BN]
Attorneys for the Applicants:
Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
SOLICITOR GENERAL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend Lawson Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company 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 consolidated class action suit entitled,
Lawson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284.
On July 20, 2018, the company acquired all of the issued and
outstanding common shares of Klondex Mines Ltd. ("Klondex") for
consideration valued at $2.27 per Klondex share (the
"Arrangement"). The acquisition resulted in our 100% ownership of
three land packages in northern Nevada totaling approximately 110
square miles and containing operating or previously-operating mines
with a history of high-grade gold production, along with various
other gold properties.
Following the announcement of the company's proposed acquisition of
Klondex, Klondex and members of the Klondex board of directors were
named as defendants in several putative stockholder class actions
brought by purported stockholders of Klondex challenging the
proposed merger.
The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada. On December 18, 2018, the remaining three
cases were consolidated into a single case, Lawson v. Klondex Mines
Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284 (D. Nev. June 15, 2018).
The plaintiffs generally claim that Klondex issued a proxy
statement that included misstatements or omissions, in violation of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to obtain
rescissory damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs.
Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation
matters with certainty, each of Klondex and its directors believe
that each of the lawsuits are without merit, and the parties intend
to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.
HOF'S HUT: Rodriguez Seeks Penalties for Improperly Paid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOF'S HUT RESTAURANTS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV40980 (Cal. Super., Nov. 13, 2019),
seeks to recover penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due
to the Plaintiff and others, including unpaid and illegally
calculated overtime and minimum wage compensation.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants in the State of
California as a non-exempt employee, also accuses the Defendants
of: having illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay
all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to
maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment, and
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or
losses incurred in discharging their duties.
Hof's Hut is a southern California home-style eatery and 1950s
coffee shop-style restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
Vanessa M. Rodriguez, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
KENCO GROUP: Hill-Patterson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyron Hill-Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KENCO GROUP, INC. and KENCO LOGISTIC
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2019CH14331 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 12,
2019), is brought against the Defendant to put a stop to its
unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the
putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.
When employees first begin their jobs at Kenco, they are required
to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as
a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other
identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using
biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious
risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards which can be changed
or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This
exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Kenco
disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges.
Specifically, Kenco has violated the BIPA because it did not:
properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of
the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by
the BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff and the Class's
fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive a written
release from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect,
capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Illinois.
Kenco is a third party logistics services provider that conducts
business throughout Illinois, including in Cook County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: 630.355.7590
Fax: 630.778.0400
Email: admin@fishlawfirm.com
dfish@fishlawfirm.com
jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
LUXOTTICA US: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxottica U.S.
Holdings Corp. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11427
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Luxottica US Holdings Corp. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and
distributes eyewear products.[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
MASSAGE RETREAT: $212,771 Dahlheimer Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval
of Settlement in the case captioned Rosalee Dahlheimer, Jessica
Onu, and Jessica Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Massage Retreat & Spa, Inc. and
Lee Oberg, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-01906 KMM (D. Minn.).
Named Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants alleging
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), the Minnesota Payment
of Wages Act (MPWA), Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment/Quantum
Meruit, and Civil Liability for Theft (Litigation).
The Proposed Settlement Class is hereby certified forpurposes of
settlement only.
The Court grants the parties' joint motion for an Order granting
Final Approval of Settlement, to Certify the Proposed Settlement
Class, to Certify the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, to
Certify Joshua R. Williams as Class Counsel, and to Approve Service
Awards, Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Claims Administration Costs.
The Court grants Class Counsel's request for approval of reasonable
attorneys' fees in the amount of $165,000.00 and costs in the
amount of $2,918.80.
The Court grants Named Plaintiff Dahlheimer's request for a service
award of $5,000.00, Named Plaintiff Garcia's request for a service
award of $4,000.00 and Named Plaintiff Onu's request for a service
award of $4,000.00.
The Court approves the amount of $18,000.00 to be distributed to
the appointed Claims Administrator for reasonable expenses related
to the claims administration process outlined in the Settlement
Agreement
The Court approves the amount of $212,771.49 to be distributed to
those Settlement Class Members who chose to submit claims, pursuant
to the self-executing formula outlined in the Settlement
Agreement.
Defendant shall provide payment to the IOLTA Account of Class
Counsel, Law Office of Joshua R. Williams, in an amount equal to
$411,690.29 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
Class Counsel shall distribute payment in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, including payment for service awards,
claims administration, the Settlement Class Member Fund, attorney
fees, and litigation costs.
This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall
retain jurisdiction with respect to the interpretation,
implementation and enforcement of the terms of this Agreement, this
Order and the accompanying Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5637wq6 from Leagle.com.
Rosalee Dahlheimer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jessica Garcia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & Jessica Onu, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joshua R. Williams , Law Office of Joshua R. Williams, 2836 Lyndale
Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, 55408.
Lee Oberg, Defendant, represented by Joel P. Schroeder -
jschroeder@bestlaw.com - Best & Flanagan LLP.
Massage Retreat & Spa, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Voss - avoss@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC & John H.
Lassetter - jlassetter@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC.
MDL 2672: Court Dismisses Misrepresentation Claims With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE:
VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-4372-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB
(JSC), (N.D. Cal.). This Order Relates To: Dkt. Nos. 5782, 5783
Nemet.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The Court previously gave Plaintiffs leave to amend their
misrepresentation claims, which were deficient under Rule 9(b). In
their amended complaint, Plaintiffs have made no attempt to cure
the previously identified deficiencies. Jennifer Nemet continues to
allege simply that the car she purchased did not deliver the
advertised combination of low emissions, high performance, and fuel
efficiency. As in the original complaint, she does not identify
when and where she saw this advertising, what type of advertising
it was, or what the advertising actually represented. The other
named plaintiffs' allegations are materially the same as Jennifer
Nemet's.
Rather than add new allegations, Plaintiffs argue they do not need
to.
They note that in their original and amended complaints they did
identify specific Volkswagen advertisements; they just didn't
allege that the named plaintiffs saw and relied upon those
advertisements. They argue that this second step is not required
because courts have regularly interpreted Rule 9(b) to mean that
its heightened pleading requirements do not apply to the element of
reliance.
Kearns, Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009),
makes clear that for false advertising claims, Rule 9(b) requires
the plaintiff to identify what the advertisements specifically
stated, when he was exposed to them, which ones he found material
and which sales material he relied upon in making his decision to
buy the product in question. To the extent that the district court
decisions cited by Plaintiffs stand for a different rule, they are
not binding. Kearns is binding and Plaintiffs have not attempted to
satisfy its requirements.
As Plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims do not satisfy Rule 9(b),
Volkswagen's motion to dismiss them is GRANTED. And as Plaintiffs
made no attempt to cure these claims' deficiencies, dismissal is
with prejudice.
The Remaining Claims
As for the remaining claims in the amended complaint, Volkswagen's
and Bosch's motions to dismiss them are DENIED. The denial is
without prejudice. Defendants may renew any of the arguments they
have raised for dismissal of these claims at summary judgment.
To streamline adjudication of issues that have been raised with
respect to damages, the Court orders each side, Plaintiffs on one
side and Volkswagen and Bosch on the other, to select two named
plaintiffs (four in total) for which Plaintiffs will be required to
offer proof of damages before the case proceeds further. The
parties may engage in discovery to help determine which named
plaintiffs to select. The parties may also engage in discovery as
reasonably needed to prove and defend against the selected
plaintiffs' claims of damages. After evidence of damages has been
submitted, the Court will consider whether the evidence is
admissible, whether the methodologies offered to prove damages can
be used to calculate damages on a class-wide basis, and whether the
trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the identified damages
are recoverable under the relevant causes of action, assuming that
all other elements of those causes of action are satisfied. The
Court orders the parties to meet and confer and to propose a
schedule to facilitate this process.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s November 4, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yfmvbdpx from Leagle.com
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -
rob@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman - steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser - toml@hbsslaw.com - Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -
astewart@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
- tshapiro@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker - caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro
hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman , Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 1100 IDS
Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2015, pro hac
vice.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -
avague@lightfootlaw.com - Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -clucier@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III - chuck.baker@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker - chtucker@rhodesokla.com - Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -
dana.lang@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg - eisenberg@bscr-law.com - Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. - henry.smythe@wbd-us.com - Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -McGuireWoods LLP.
MDL 2672: Filing of Revised Redacted Clean Diesel Suit Due Dec. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MDL
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This
Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 4043. Audi CO2 Action, Case No. 2672
CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, consistent with
prior Orders in the MDL (i) granted the Plaintiffs' administrative
motion to file under seal the names and job titles of the
individuals who are identified in the Audi CO2 Consolidated
Consumer Class Action Complaint who are not named as the Defendants
in the Complaint; and (ii) denied the motion to seal the remaining
sections of the Complaint that have been marked for redaction.
The Volkswagen Group Defendants are directed to provide the
Plaintiffs with proposed redactions that are consistent with the
Order by Dec. 13, 2019. The Plaintiffs will file a revised
redacted complaint by Dec. 18, 2019.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DSHRym from Leagle.com.
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: NVIDIA Merger-Related Suits Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. 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 class action
suits related to NVIDIA merger have been voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiffs.
On March 10, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with NVIDIA Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("NVIDIA"), NVIDIA International Holdings
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of NVIDIA
("Parent") and Teal Barvaz Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent organized under the laws of the State of Israel and wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). NVIDIA has agreed to
guarantee the payment and performance obligations of Parent under
the Merger Agreement.
On May 1, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Marc Henzel
v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and the members of its board of directors.
On May 2, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Michael
Kent v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Also on May 2, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled David
Thornton v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On May 3, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Lewis Stein
v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, the members of its board of directors, NVIDIA
International Holdings Inc., Teal Barvaz Ltd., and NVIDIA
Corporation.
Also on May 3, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Elaine Wang v. Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and the members of its board of directors.
On May 23, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Ronald Grutz v. Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
All six suits alleged that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
the Company on April 22, 2019 with the SEC in connection with the
proposed Merger omits material information with respect to the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rendering it
false and misleading in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. Each plaintiff sought, among other things,
injunctive relief, rescission, declaratory relief and unspecified
monetary damages.
None of the plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief before the
shareholder vote, which occurred on June 20, 2019, and all of the
lawsuits have now been dismissed.
On June 25, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit entitled
Michael Kent v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al. filed a
voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
On July 31, 2019, the plaintiff of the lawsuit entitled Elaine Wang
v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed a voluntary dismissal
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On August 26, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit
entitled David Thornton v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al.,
filed a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.
On October 2, 2019, the plaintiff of the lawsuit entitled Ronald
Grutz v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed a voluntary
dismissal in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On October 3, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit
entitled Marc Henzel v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed
a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
On October 14, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit
entitled Lewis Stein v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed
a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby may be filed in
the future.
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., incorporated on March 30, 1999, is a
fabless semiconductor company. The Company is an integrated
supplier of interconnect products and solutions based on the
InfiniBand and Ethernet standards. The Company operates in the
development, manufacturing, marketing and sales of interconnect
products segment. The Company's products facilitate data
transmission between servers, storage systems, communications
infrastructure equipment and other embedded systems. It operates
its business globally and offers products to customers at various
levels of integration. The company is based in Beit Mellanox,
Yokneam, Israel.
MK AUTOMOTIVE: Sued by Nichols Alleging Deceptive & Unfair Trade
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Nichols, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. MK AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a TOYOTA OF TAMPA
BAY, Case No. 100252082 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Dec. 12,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violating the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
MK Automotive Management LLC d/b/a Toyota of Tampa (the Dealership)
asked the Plaintiff to consider a 2015 Toyota Camry. The Plaintiff
liked the Vehicle and decided to purchase it. Sometime after or
chasing the Camry, the Plaintiff decided that she did not like the
way it drove and found it too confining. On May 25, 2018, the
Plaintiff returned to the Dealership to return the Vehicle. The
Dealership agreed to find a replacement vehicle that was more to
the Plaintiff's liking. The Dealership specifically represented
that the Plaintiff could use the Camry as a trade-in vehicle
towards the purchase of another Vehicle.
The Plaintiff agreed to purchase the 2015 Toyota Rav4. The
Dealership suggested that the Plaintiff pay a $9,000.00 down
payment to make her monthly payment similar to those of the Camry.
However, when the Plaintiff went to sign the purchase contracts for
the Rav4, she was not given the opportunity to review the documents
in their entirely prior to signing.
The Plaintiff traded in the Camry, provided a $9,000.00 check to
the Dealership, executed Buyer's Order, Agreement & Vehicle
Information Form (Second Sales Contract), and the Retail
Installment Sale Contract (Second Finance Agreement) for her
purchase of the Rav4, and then left the Dealership with the Rav4.
Upon receiving copies of the Second Sales Contract and Second
Finance Agreement, the Plaintiff noticed that she only received a
$12,000.00 trade allowance for the Camry after purchasing it for
almost $19,000.00 less than two weeks prior.
Moreover, the Dealership did not reflect the $9,000.00 down payment
in the Second Sales Contract or Second Finance Agreement.
Accordingly, the Dealership only credited the Plaintiff around
$3,000.00 for trading the Camry. The Dealership charged the
Plaintiff a predelivery service fee in the Seconds Finance
Agreement but failed to include the required disclosure.
The Plaintiff would not have gone to the Dealership or purchased a
vehicle from the Dealership if she had not received the fraudulent
and misleading purchase voucher from the Dealership, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual consumer, who resides in Tampa,
Florida.
MK Automotive Management LLC, d/b/a Toyota of Tampa (the
Dealership), is a Florida limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
Autumn Tolar, Esq.
Riley W. Hudson, Esq.
ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
4610 Central Ave., Suite B
St. Petersburg, FL 33711
Phone: (813) 304-2131
Email: rmason@flautolawyer.com
atolar@flautolawyer.com
rhudson@flautolawyer.com
admin@flautolawyer.com
MOVAGE INC: Letter Explaining How Williams Proceeds Due Dec. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case JEVON WILLIAMS; MITCHELL MARTINEZ; DIMITRIJE ZIVKOVIC;
and DERRICK ADAMS, Plaintiffs, v. MOVAGE, INC.; BAJO VUJOVIC; and
CHRISTIAN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 2628 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered the parties to file letters
to the Court, not exceeding three pages each, by Dec. 18, 2019,
explaining how they believe the Court and parties should proceed
given the Second Circuit's ruling in Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.
On Sept. 19, 2019, the parties informed the Court that the
Plaintiffs had accepted an offer of judgment from the Defendants
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The Court ordered
the parties to submit their Rule 68 settlement to the Court for a
Cheeks review, although acknowledging that the Second Circuit was
reviewing whether such a review was required.
The Plaintiffs submitted the proposed judgment to the Court for
review on Dec. 3, 2019, and the parties appeared before the Court
on Dec. 6, 2019, to discuss the proposed judgment. On the same
day, the Second Circuit issued its decision in Yu, holding that
judicial approval of Rule 68(a) offers of judgment is not
required.
Therefore, Judge Failla ordered the parties to file letters to the
Court, not exceeding three pages each, by Dec. 18, 2019, explaining
how they believe the Court and parties should proceed given the
Second Circuit's ruling.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CEuzSG from Leagle.com.
Jevon Williams, Mitchell Martinez, Dimitrije Zivkovic & Derrick
Adams, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Albert Adam Breud, II --
breudlaw@optonline.net -- Law Offices of Albert Adam Breud,
P.L.L.C. & Robert Wisniewski -- rw@rwapc.com -- Robert Wisniewski &
Associates P.C.
Movage, Inc., Bajo Vujovic & Christian Doe, Defendants, represented
by Joshua Matthew Lurie -- jmlurie@luriestrupinsky.com -- Lurie,
Strupinsky, LLP.
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Amusements,
Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National
Amusements, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11428 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
National Amusements, Inc. is an American privately-owned theater
company and mass media holding company based in Dedham,
Massachusetts and incorporated in Maryland.[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
NBT BANK: Faces Lowe Suit Over Violation of Contract-Related Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NBT Bank, N.A. The
case is captioned as Christopher Lowe, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NBT Bank, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01400-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of contract-related laws. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino.
NBT Bank is an American financial institution that operates through
a network of more than 150 banking locations serving north-eastern
states including offices in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
Facsimile: (646) 293-7937
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
NORTHEAST NATURAL: Heaster Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Heaster, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
NORTHEAST NATURAL ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00887 (S.D.W. Va.,
Dec. 12, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week but these workers never received overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the
complaint. Instead of receiving overtime as required by the FLSA,
the Defendant classified the Plaintiff as an independent
contractor, and these workers received a flat amount for each day
worked without overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff worked for NNE as a Landman.
NNE is an oil and gas exploration and production company with
operations throughout the Appalachian region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
James S. Nelson, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 346-2889
Fax: (304) 346-2895
- and -
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
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
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 company has
filed an agreed motion asking a district court in Tel Aviv, Israel
to stay class action proceedings in Israel until a final decision
in the class action suit initiated by Mac Costas, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada is adjudicated.
On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in
Tel Aviv District Court in Israel against Ormat Technologies, Inc.
and 11 officers and directors.
The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat
shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and
May 13, 2018".
The motion alleges that the Company violated Sections 31(a)(1) and
38C of the Israeli Securities Law because it allegedly: (1) misled
investors by stating in its financial statements that it maintains
effective internal controls over its accounting policies and
procedures, however the Company's internal controls had material
weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited
quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to
the Company's net income and shareholders' equity; and (2) failed
to issue an immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018,
analogous to the report that was released in the United States on
May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial
reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its
2017 annual report.
The Company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court
to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the
U.S. case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
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.
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Sunwear of
California, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Pacific Sunwear of California, LLC, Pacific Sunwear Stores LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07010 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Pacific Sunwear of California, LLC operates mall-based specialty
retail chain of stores. The Company specializes in casual apparel,
footwear, and related accessories catering to teenagers and young
adults.[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
PEAK TECHNICAL: Pereyra Seeks Withheld Pay for Machine Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO PEREYRA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEAK TECHNICAL STAFFING USA, a
business entity operating in California; PEAK TECHNICAL SERVICES
LP, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership; PEAK TECHNICAL SERVICES,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01111524-CU-OE-CXC ROA (Cal. Super.,
Nov. 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by
withholding wages, including minimum and overtime wages, from the
class members.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee working as a machine operator.
PEAK is an information technology and engineering recruiting
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Michael Crosner, Esq.
Branden Hamilton, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (818) 700-9973
PRIMARK US: Calcano Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primark US Corp. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Primark US Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06990 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Primark is an international retailer that offers the latest
fashion, beauty and homeware at the best value around.[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
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Interest Rate in Hsu Settlement Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 court in the
class action suit initiated by Hsingching Hsu has entered an order
specifying the rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any
valid claims at the 52-week Treasury Bill rate.
On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).
On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.
A trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15 to January 29,
2019.
At trial, the jury found that three of the four challenged
statements were not false or misleading, and thus found in the
defendants’ favor on those claims.
The jury found liability as to one statement and awarded a maximum
of $4.50 per share in damages, which represents approximately 5% of
the total claimed damages of $87.20 per share.
The total amount of aggregate class-wide damages is uncertain and
will be ascertained only after an extensive claims process and the
exhaustion of any appeals.
Trading models suggest that approximately ten million shares traded
during the class period may be eligible to claim damages.
Based on prior lawsuits, the Company believes that the number of
stockholders who submit proof of claims sufficient to recover
damages is typically in the range of 20% to 40% of the total
eligible shares.
Based on these assumptions, total damages after claims could range
from $9 million to $18 million.
It is also reasonably possible that the total damages will be
higher than this estimate, however, at this time, the amount is not
estimable.
On September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order specifying the
rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any valid claims at
the 52-week Treasury Bill rate.
The Court's order also established a claims process, which is
expected to take about 12 months.
A final judgment has not been entered.
Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
RA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Wheby Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
RA 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, Earl M. Wheby,
Jr. v. Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
On November 1, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Elaine Wang v. Ra
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and
the members of the Company's board of directors.
On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Earl
M. Wheby, Jr. v. Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware against
the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors.
The lawsuits allege that the proxy statement filed by the Company
on November 1, 2019 with the SEC in connection with the Acquisition
omits material information with respect to the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rendering it false and
misleading in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission, declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages.
The Company believes these lawsuits are wholly without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
RA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
using our proprietary peptide chemistry platform to develop novel
therapeutics for the treatment of serious diseases that are caused
by excessive or uncontrolled activation of the complement system, a
critical component of the immune system.
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC 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 class action suit entitled, Moehrl, Cole, Darnell,
Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National
Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of
America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies,
Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois), is pending.
This amended putative class action complaint, filed on June 14,
2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl and Sawbill litigation reported
in the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019,
(ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants, and (iii) serves as a
response to the separate motions to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019
in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR and the Company
(along with the other defendants named in the prior Moehrl
complaint).
In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly
established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple
listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to
make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property.
The plaintiffs further allege that the defendant franchisors
conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to
comply with NAR's policies and Code of Ethics.
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to
otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit.
Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in
the case, which has yet to be decided by the court.
On August 9, 2019, NAR and the Company (together with the other
defendants named in the amended Moehler complaint) each filed
separate motions to dismiss this litigation.
The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss on
September 13, 2019, and the defendants filed their replies in
support of the motions on October 18, 2019.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Sitzer Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC 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 filed in the class action suit entitled, Sitzer and Winger
v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp.,
Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri), has been denied.
This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019
and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy
Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks
the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation.
The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief
sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of
action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, or MMPA.
On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to
transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the
motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and
the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor
defendants).
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
RITA'S FRANCHISE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rita's Franchise
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Rita's Franchise Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11430
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Rita's Franchise Company is a company offering franchising of its
ice-custard brand.[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
SAHADI FINE: Calcano Sues Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sahadi Importing Co.,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sahadi Fine Foods Inc., Sahadi Importing Co., Inc., and Sahadi's
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06412-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13,
2019).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack.
Sahadi has been in business since 1999. The company handle over
2,000 quality specialty foods, serving residential, commercial and
industrial customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net
SALLY BEAUTY: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sally Beauty
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11433
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. is an American international specialty
retailer and distributor of professional beauty supplies.[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
SAN MEDICA: Faces Diebler Fraud Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Medica
International, LLC. The case is captioned as HOLLY DIEBLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SAN MEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and Defendant DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20155-NLH-JS (D.N.J., Nov. 13,
2019).
The suit alleges fraud-related violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman.
San Medica International, LLC develops and distributes anti-aging
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
475 White Horse Pike
Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909
Telephone: (856) 858-1770
Facsimile: (856) 858-7012
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
SEMGROUP CORP: Faces Suits over Energy Transfer Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Semgroup 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 company is
defending against multiple class action suits related to its merger
with Energy Transfer LP.
On September 15, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Energy Transfer LP, a
Delaware limited partnership ("ET") and Nautilus Merger Sub LLC
("Merger Sub"), a Delaware limited liability company and a newly
formed, wholly owned subsidiary of ET, whereby SemGroup will be
acquired by ET in a unit and cash transaction, including the
assumption of debt and other liabilities (the "Merger").
On October 15, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Thompson v. SemGroup Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01948,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
Also on October 15, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Walpole v. SemGroup Corp. et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-01957 was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
On October 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Topley v. SemGroup Corp. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09630 was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On October 28, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Lawrence v. SemGroup Corporation et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02035 was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
On October 31, 2019 a lawsuit captioned Stallings v. SemGroup
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03108, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Each of the petitions names as defendants SemGroup and the members
of the SemGroup board of directors.
The plaintiffs in the above mentioned lawsuits allege purported
claims challenging the Merger and the proxy statement/prospectus
filed in connection with the Merger and seek, among other things,
to enjoin the Merger.
Plaintiffs claim that the proxy statement/prospectus is misleading.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the proxy
statement/prospectus fails to disclose certain information
concerning the Merger in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
Lawsuits similar to the above mentioned suits may be filed in the
future.
Semgroup said, "We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential
loss at this time. We believe that the claims asserted in these
lawsuits are without merit and plan to vigorously defend against
them."
Semgroup Corporation provides gathering, transportation, storage,
distribution, marketing and other midstream services primarily to
producers, refiners of petroleum products and other market
participants located in the Gulf Coast, Midwest and Rocky Mountain
regions of the United States of America and Canada. The company is
based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
SHAW INDUSTRIES: 9th Cir. Remands Fitch Case to Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a
Memorandum vacating the District Court's Sua Sponte Remand in the
case captioned RANDOLPH FITCH, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC.; SHAW INDUSTRIES
GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-56119.
Shaw Industries, Inc. (Shaw) appeals from the district court's sua
sponte remand of Randolph Fitch's putative class action against
Shaw for allegedly not properly paying its hourly non-exempt
workers. The district court held that Shaw had not made the
requisite showing that the matter in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.
The Ninth Circuit held that this appeal is controlled by its recent
decision in Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th
Cir. 2019), which vacated a similar remand order.
In Arias, the the Ninth Circuit held that when a notice of removal
plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a
district court may not remand the case back to state court without
first giving the defendant an opportunity to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional requirements
are satisfied.
The Court concludes that in this case that Shaw's notice of removal
plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, and
accordingly the Court vacates the district court's sua sponte
remand order.
On remand, should the district court again consider remanding this
action to the state court, it should follow our holdings in Arias
that:
(1) a removing defendant's notice of removal need not contain
evidentiary submissions' but only plausible allegations of the
jurisdictional elements.
(2) when a defendant's allegations of removal jurisdiction are
challenged, the defendant's showing on the amount in controversy
may rely on reasonable assumptions.
(3) when a statute or contract provides for the recovery of
attorneys' fees, prospective attorneys' fees must be included in
the assessment of the amount in controversy.
Accordingly, the district court's order remanding this action to
the state court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the
district court.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 21, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyayaqt8 from Leagle.com.
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Court Denies Winkworth's Bid to Remand Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum and Opinion denying Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand the case captioned BRUCE WINKWORTH and MARCIA
BOTELHO, Individually and on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPECTRUM BRANDS,
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-1011 (W.D. Pa.).
Plaintiffs commenced this class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, to redress a
defective and dangerous condition present in the Remington(R) Hot
Rollers (Hot Rollers) that were warranted, advertised, distributed,
and sold by Spectrum throughout the United States. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that due to a latent defect, the Hot Rollers heat
to unreasonably unsafe temperatures when operated as instructed
thereby exposing consumers to dangerous skin contact.
Spectrum filed a timely notice of removal in this Court averring
that the jurisdictional requirements under CAFA are satisfied.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand this action to state court. In
their Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs contest Spectrum's allegation
regarding the amount in controversy.
Standard of Review
The removing party carries a heavy burden of showing that at all
stages of the litigation the case is properly before the federal
court. Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, with all
doubts to be resolved in favor of remand.
Under CAFA, a defendant may remove a class action to a federal
district court so long as the action satisfies the statute's
special diversity and procedural requirements. Specifically,
federal district courts have original jurisdiction over such cases
when (1) there are at least 100 members of the class (2) there is
minimal diversity, i.e., any member of the class of plaintiffs is a
citizen of a different state from any defendant and (3) the amount
in controversy, as aggregated across all individual claims, exceeds
the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.
In their Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs contend that they are not
seeking a nationwide refund to each purchaser of the Hot Rollers.
Rather, according to Plaintiffs, a proper reading of their
complaint demonstrates that any refund would only be in the context
of a breach of express warranty for the Pennsylvania Class.
Plaintiffs maintain that the injunctive and/or declaratory relief
that they seek on behalf of the Nationwide Class is limited to,
inter alia, declaring coverage under the available express and
implied warranties. Plaintiffs therefore object to the aggregation
of national sales data as a means to satisfy the amount in
controversy.
Plaintiffs' contentions are untenable for two reasons.
First, to the extent that Plaintiffs now seek to limit the
replacements/refunds to the Pennsylvania Class, their position
conflicts with the holding of the United States Supreme Court that
a prospective class member cannot legally bind members of a
proposed class before the class is certified.In fact, as
representatives of the putative Nationwide Class, it is Plaintiffs'
fiduciary duty not to "throw away what could be a major component
of the class's recovery.
Second, leaving aside the fact that Plaintiffs' current position is
at odds with what they specifically seek in their complaint, i.e.,
refunds or replacements for both Classes, in actions seeking
declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the
amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the
litigation.
Here, if Plaintiffs prevail, they will obtain a declaration that
all Hot Rollers are covered under Spectrum's express and implied
warranties. In turn, this declaration would entitle each individual
in the Nationwide Class to a replacement Hot Roller or a refund of
the purchase price. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for
Spectrum to rely upon national sales data over the relevant time
period to prove to a reasonable certainty that jurisdiction
exists.
Spectrum has met its burden to show by the preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
threshold. Because the value of the relief Plaintiffs seek on
behalf of the Nationwide Class exceeds $5 million, the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this case under CAFA.
Against this backdrop, the Court finds that the jurisdictional
requirements under CAFA are satisfied. Therefore, Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand will be denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5aolddv
from Leagle.com.
BRUCE WINKWORTH & MARCIA BOTELHO, Individually, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick Howard – phoward@smbb.com -
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky & Troy M. Frederick , Frederick
Law Group, PLLC, 836 Philadelphia St. Indiana, PA 15701.
SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., Defendant, represented by Michael S. Nelson
-michael.nelson@klgates.com -, K&L Gates LLP.
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Court Trims Ferguson Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, 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 United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York tossed
certain claims against DST Systems, Inc., et al., in the class
action suit entitled, Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb
Inc., et al.
A putative class action suit was filed against DST Systems, the
Compensation Committee of DST's Board of Directors, the Advisory
Committee of DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and
certain of DST's present and/or former officers and directors,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed purportedly on behalf
of the Plan in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff &
Goldfarb Inc., et al., naming as defendants DST, the Compensation
Committee of DST's Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of
the Plan and certain of DST's present and/or former officers and
directors.
On September 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted a partial dismissal related
to certain claims against the DST Defendants concerning the 401(k)
portion of the Plan.
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. provides software products and
software-enabled services to financial services and healthcare
industries in the United States, Canada, rest of the Americas,
Europe, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. SS&C Technologies Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Windsor,
Connecticut.
ST. CROIX HOSPICE: Knull Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and WWPCL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Knull, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. ST. CROIX HOSPICE, LLC and HOMETOWN HOSPICE & HOMECARE, INC.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01818 (E.D. Wisc., Dec. 12, 2019), is brought to
obtain relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of
their wages earned for all compensable work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, according to the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendants' unlawful compensation system failed
to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as
monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other
rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation
purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of
Occupational Therapist.
The Defendants are hospice providers with locations that they own,
operate, and manage throughout the State of Wisconsin and the
Midwestern region of the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
SYNACOR INC: Plaintiff Seeks to File 3rd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, 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 plaintiff's bid
to file a third amended complaint in the class action suit before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is
pending.
The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The class includes persons who purchased the Company's shares
between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018.
The plaintiff alleged that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its contract with AT&T and the
timing of revenue to be derived therefrom, and that as a result,
class members suffered losses because Synacor shares traded at
artificially inflated prices.
The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and legal expenses. The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on August 2, 2018, a second amended complaint
on November 2, 2018, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
December 17, 2018.
The plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on
January 19, 2019 and the Company filed its reply to plaintiff's
opposition on February 15, 2019.
On August 28, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but permitted the plaintiff to seek leave to replead.
On October 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed a letter application
seeking the court's leave to file a third amended complaint. The
Company filed a letter in opposition to the plaintiff's motion on
October 21, 2019.
Synacor said, "The Company disputes these claims and intends to
defend them vigorously. The Company cannot yet determine whether it
is probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this
complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential
loss, if any. Legal fees and liabilities related to this lawsuit
are covered by D&O insurance after the Company reaches its
deductible."
Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc. and changed its name to
Synacor, Inc. in July 2001. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Accord in Suit v. Sturm Foods Has Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel in November granted preliminary
approval of the settlement reached in the case, Suchanek et al v.
Sturm Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00565 (S.D. Ill., June
28, 2011).
A settlement fairness hearing is set for April 21, 2020 at 1:30
p.m. in East St. Louis Courthouse before Chief Judge Rosenstengel.
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 in 2011, the
Company's Sturm Foods, Inc. business was sued in an action
captioned Suchanek et al v. Sturm Foods, Inc. and TreeHouse, Inc.,
and the suit was followed by several class action proceedings in
eight states which were consolidated into one case pending in
federal court in East St. Louis, Illinois. The suit's primary
allegation relates to certain purported label misrepresentations as
to the nature of its Grove Square coffee products.
Without admitting liability or fault, the Company is pursuing court
approval of a settlement for all related parties and matters for an
amount not to exceed $25.0 million.
As a result of these developments, the Company has recognized a
$25.0 million accrual as of September 30, 2019, which represents
the best estimate of liability.
The proposed settlement will likely be finalized by the court in
2019, the Company said.
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.
TRIDENT ASSET: Warner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRIDENT ASSET
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Warner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., ORION PORTFOLIO
SERVICES II, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-05876-PBT (E.D. Pa., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Trident Asset Management, LLC operates in the collection and
servicing of non-performing consumer receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC
1800 John F Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
TRUECAR INC: Jan. 27 Final Hearing to Approve Milbeck Case Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, 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 court in the
class action suit initiated by Leon Milbeck has scheduled a hearing
for January 27, 2020, to consider final approval of the case
parties' settlement.
In March 2018, Leon Milbeck filed a putative securities class
action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, which the company refers to as
the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation.
On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, who filed an amended
complaint on August 24, 2018.
The amended complaint sought an award of unspecified damages,
interest, attorney's fees and equitable relief based on allegations
that the defendants made false or misleading statements about our
business, operations, prospects and performance during a purported
class period of February 16, 2017 through November 6, 2017 in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the defendants made
actionable misstatements in violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act in connection with our secondary offering that
occurred during the class period.
The amended complaint named the company, certain of its
then-current and former officers and directors and the underwriters
for the company's secondary offering as defendants.
On October 31, 2018, the lead plaintiff dismissed the underwriters
from the litigation "without prejudice," meaning that they could be
reinstated as defendants at a later time, and on November 5, 2018,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
the court denied on February 5, 2019.
On May 9, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
On August 2, 2019, the parties entered into an agreement to settle
the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation on a class-wide basis for
$28.25 million, all of which will be paid by our directors' and
officers' liability insurance.
On October 15, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing on
January 27, 2020.
The settlement is subject to class notice, potential objections and
opt-outs and final approval by the court.
TrueCar said, "Although the court has not yet finally approved the
settlement, and the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding
therefore remains uncertain, we do not believe that a loss is
probable because we expect that any settlement amount will be
covered by our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance.
However, if similar litigation is filed against us, we may incur
significant legal fees, settlements or damage awards as a result.
If any such matter is not resolved in our favor, losses arising
from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing
defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows."
TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. The company was formerly
known as Zag.com Inc. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Santa Monica, California.
TUMI INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tumi, Inc. The case
is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tumi, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11435 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Tumi Holdings, Inc., is a South Plainfield, New Jersey-based
manufacturer of high-end suitcases and bags for travel.[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
TURF HOLDINGS: Gossen Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Gossen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TURF HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A WEED MAN USA, Case No.
3:19-cv-01013 (W.D. Wis., Dec. 12, 2019), is brought to enforce the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent automated
telemarketing calls to him and other putative class members without
their prior express written consent. This Complaint also relates to
the Defendant's conduct of making telemarketing calls in the
absence of an adequate "do not call" policy or training as well as
making calls to individuals who have taken the affirmative step of
registering their number on the National Do Not Call Registry.
Plaintiff Bradley Gossen is a natural person who resides in this
District.
Weed Man operates a centralized calling center in
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
TVI INC: Hartranft Settlement Deal Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Class Representative's Motion
for Final Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement in the case
captioned SEAN HARTRANFT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TVI, INC. d/b/a SAVERS, APOGEE
RETAIL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01081-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.).
The Settlement Class is as certified in the Court's Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Preliminary
Approval Order): All persons and entities to which, between and
including July 1, 2011, to September 30, 2015, Apogee made or
attempted to make one or more telephone calls to their cellular
telephones regarding donation solicitation on behalf of EFA.
The Settlement Class does not include any persons who timely and
validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class. Defendants
and any of their affiliates or subsidiaries, and any entities in
which any of such companies have a controlling interest, the judges
presiding in the Action, and Class Counsel are also excluded from
the Settlement Class.
The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and finds the
Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Court finds the
Settlement is within the authority of the parties and the result of
extensive arm's length negotiations with the guidance of an
experienced mediator.
The Court confirms the proposed Settlement Class satisfies the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as found in the Preliminary
Approval Order. Accordingly, the Court makes final the conditional
class certification set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.
Certain members of the Settlement Class have timely requested to be
excluded from the Settlement Class and the Settlement. Accordingly,
the Final Judgment shall not bind or affect Settlement Class
Members listed on Exhibit A.
The Court confirms the appointment of the Law Offices of Douglas J.
Campion, APC, Bisnar Chase LLP, and the Law Offices of Michael P.
Sousa, APC as Class Counsel. The Court confirms the appointment of
Sean Hartranft as Class Representative.
As an incentive payment in compensation for the time, effort, and
risk he undertook as representative of the Settlement Class, the
Court awards $5,000 to Sean Hartranft to be paid by Defendants.
The Court further approves Class Counsel's Fee, Expense, and
Incentive Payment Application and awards to Class Counsel fees and
costs in the total amount of $900,000, to be paid by Defendants.
All such fees are in lieu of statutory or other fees that Class
Representative and/or the Settlement Class might otherwise have
been entitled to recover.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyv4qldl from Leagle.com.
Sean Hartranft, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Chase -
bchase@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase LLP, Douglas J. Campion -
doug@djcampion.com -, Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion, APC,
Michael P. Sousa , Law Offices of Michael P Sousa APC, 3232
Governor Dr., Suite A, San Diego, CA 92122, & Jerusalem F. Beligan
- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase LLP.
TVI Inc, doing business as Savers Inc. & Apogee Retail LLC,
Defendants, represented by Kenneth E. Payson - kenpayson@dwt.com -
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren B. Rainwater
-laurenrainwater@dwt.com - Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice
& Sean M. Sullivan - seansullivan@dwt.com - Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Rapada Suit Over IPO-Related Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGIL JAYCE JENNINGS RAPADA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, an individual, NELSON
CHAI, an individual; GLENN CEREMONY, an individual; RONALD SUGAR,
an individual; URSULA BURNS, an individual; GARRETT CAMP, an
individual; MATT COHLER, an individual; RYAN GRAVES, an individual;
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON; an individual; TRAVIS KALANICK, an individual;
WAN LING MARTELLO, an individual; H.E. YASIR AL-RUMAYYAN, an
individual; JOHN THAIN, an individual; and DAVID TRUJILLO, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-580807 (Cal. Super., Nov.
14, 2019), asserts strict liability claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 against Uber and certain of the
Company's officers and directors.
The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Uber common stock
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with Uber's May 2019 initial public offering
(IPO).
On April 26, 2019, the Defendants filed a final amendment to the
registration statement, which registered over 200 million shares of
Uber common stock for public sale. The SEC declared the
Registration Statement effective on May 9, 2019. On May 13, 2019,
the Defendants filed the final prospectus for the IPO, which forms
part of the Registration Statement.
On May 14, 2019, the Company completed the IPO, which, upon the
underwriters exercising their full overallotment option to purchase
additional shares, issued approximately 207 million shares of Uber
stock priced to the public at $45.00 per share, generating over $8
billion for the Defendants.
The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as result, contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the Registration Statement
contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that (i) Uber was already rapidly increasing subsidies for
customers' rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused
the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell and margin and
take rate to drop off); (ii) Defendants were cutting, or planned to
cut, costs in key areas that undermined the Company's central
growth opportunities; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading at-all
relevant times.
In July 2019, Uber announced the termination of one third of its
global marketing workforce--400 out of 1200--terminated. This
action stood in stark contrast to the Registration Statement's
claim that Uber was, at the time of the Offering, "focused on
optimizing our performance marketing spend."
On this news, the price of Uber shares fell from to $42.59 per
share on July 30, 2019, to a close at $39.05 per share by August 5,
2019, representing a 13.22% decline from the Offering price.
Then, in August 2019, Uber announced severely negative second
quarter 2019 financial results, revealing revenues of $3.16 billion
and losses of $5.2 billion. Uber also revealed that its ridesharing
revenue growth had slumped to only 2% and that its sales and
marketing expenses for the three and six months ended June 30,
2019, had spiked 70.9% and 62.5%, respectively, to $507 million and
$870 million, respectively.
Then, in early September 2019, Uber announced it would lay off
another 8% of its workforce, principally 435 employees within its
product and engineering divisions.
By the commencement of the action, Uber shares had traded below $29
per share, a more than 34% decline from the $45.00 per share IPO
price, and continue to trade below the IPO price.
As a result, investors have suffered severe losses, the lawsuit
says.
Uber is a technology company that provides a mobile application for
ridesharing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@ponilaw.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Warner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UNITED COLLECTION
BUREAU, INC., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Warner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., LVNV FUNDING LLC, John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05877-JDW (E.D. Pa., Dec.
13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
United Collections Bureau is a debt collection agency servicing
companies in the government, finance, healthcare, student loan,
utilities, and communication industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC
1800 John F Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
UNTUCKIT LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UNTUCKit, LLC. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNTUCKit, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11437 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Untuckit LLC is an American casual men's apparel company
established in 2011 and headquartered 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
US PREMIUM: NBP Named as Defendant in Suits over Cattle Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC 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,
through unit, National Beef Packing Company, has been named as a
defendant in these class action lawsuits:
-- In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation;
-- Peterson et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al.;
and
-- Pacific Agri-Products, Inc. v. JBS USA Food Company
Holdings, et al.
The Class action lawsuits allege, among other things, violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the
Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws.
NBP intends to vigorously defend itself.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by products, and consumer ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.
VENATOR MATERIALS: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Cambria County Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned CAMBRIA COUNTY
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VENATOR
MATERIALS PLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-19-3464 (S.D.
Tex.).
The putative class members in this federal securities action bought
stock in a global chemical company, Venator Materials PLC. One of
Venator's manufacturing facilities caught on fire. Venator
completed its initial public offering. The plaintiffs allege that
as part of that offering, and at other times in the proposed class
period, Venator made public misrepresentations about the damage the
fire caused, the repair cost, and the insurance funds covering the
cost. When the full extent of the damage, cost, and effect on
Venator's production capacity were revealed, the stock price
declined.
The plaintiff shareholders seek damages for that decline.
Three plaintiffs--the City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust; the Fresno County Employees'
Retirement Association and the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System--together referred to as the Public Pension
Funds, move to be appointed as lead plaintiffs and to have
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP appointed lead counsel,
and Ajamie LLP appointed as liaison counsel.
The Standard for Determining the Most Adequate Plaintiff Under the
PSLRA
The court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate
plaintiff in any private action arising under this chapter is the
person or group of persons that: (aa) has either filed the
complaint or made a motion in response to a notice under
subparagraph (A)(i); (bb) in the determination of the court, has
the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class;
and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This presumption may be rebutted
only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that
the presumptively most adequate plaintiff (aa) will not fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class or(bb) is subject to
unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately
representing the class.
Most Adequate Plaintiff
For the presumption to apply, the lead plaintiff or plaintiffs must
possess not only the largest financial interest in the outcome of
the litigation, but must also meet the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.
The requirements are examined below.
The Largest Financial Interest
Courts in this district consider four factors to determine which
plaintiff has the largest financial interest. The factors are (1)
the number of shares purchased (2) the number of net shares
purchased (3) the total net funds expended by the plaintiff(s)
during the class period, and (4) the approximate losses suffered by
the plaintiffs.
The Public Pension Funds lost money on the Venator securities they
bought during the proposed class period. Their legal and remedial
theories have the same essential characteristics as the class
claims. The Public Pension Funds declare that they are committed to
working cohesively as a group to prosecute this action.
Typicality and adequacy are met.
Has the Presumption Been Rebutted?
No evidence has been submitted rebutting the presumption. The court
finds that the Public Pension Funds are the most adequate
plaintiffs under the PSLRA.
Approval of Lead Counsel
The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the
court, select and retain counsel to represent the class. The court
should not disturb the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel unless
that is necessary to protect the interests of the plaintiff class.
Bernstein Litowitz and Ajamie LLP meet the requirements of lead
counsel and liaison counsel.
Bernstein Litowitz submitted a firm resume and Ajamie LLP outlined
its prior experience in class action litigation. Bernstein
Litowitz has extensive experience in securities class actions, and
Ajamie LLP has extensive experience serving as liaison counsel in
this district. The record shows no basis to infer that Bernstein
Litowitz and Ajamie LLP will not adequately represent the putative
class.
The Public Pension Funds' choice of counsel is approved.
The court grants the Public Pension Funds' motion for appointment
of lead plaintiff and approves Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP as lead counsel and Ajamie LLP as liaison counsel.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 21, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5dotlm3 from Leagle.com
Cambria County Employees Retirement System, City of Miami General
Employees & Sanitation Employees Retirement Trust, Fresno County
Employees Retirement Association & City of Pontiac General
Employees Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas
Robert Ajamie = tajamie@ajamie.com - Ajamie LLP.
VERA BRADLEY: Violates ADA, Calcano Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vera Bradley Designs,
Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vera Bradley
Designs, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11444 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Vera Bradley Designs Inc provides apparel goods. The Company offers
wholesale distribution of bags, backpacks, fragrance, jewelry, and
other related products.[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
VINCE HOLDINGS: Calcano Suit Alleges ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vince Holdings Corp.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vince Holdings
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11445 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13,
2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Vince Holding Corp operates as an apparel and accessories fashion
brand.[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
WARNER MUSIC: 9th Cir. Remands Williams Case to Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a
Memorandum vacating the District Court's Sua Sponte Remand in the
case captioned LEONARD WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; THE LENNY WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, a
California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-56121.
Warner Music Group Corp. and Warner Records Inc. (WBR) appeal from
the district court's sua sponte remand of Leonard Williams'
putative class action alleging that WBR underpaid royalties owed to
potentially thousands of persons and entities for sound recordings
streamed in foreign countries.
The district court held that WBR had not made the requisite showing
that the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
According to the Ninth Circuit, "This appeal is controlled by our
recent decision in Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920
(9th Cir. 2019), which vacated a similar remand order."
In Arias, the Court held that when a notice of removal plausibly
alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a district court
may not remand the case back to state court without first giving
the defendant an opportunity to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.
The Court concludes that in this case, WBR's notice of removal
plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction and
accordingly the Court vacates the district court's sua sponte
remand order.
On remand, should the district court again consider remanding this
action to the state court, it should follow our holdings in Arias
that:
(1) a removing defendant's notice of removal need not contain
evidentiary submissions but only plausible allegations of the
jurisdictional elements.
(2) when a defendant's allegations of removal jurisdiction are
challenged, the defendant's showing on the amount in controversy
may rely on reasonable assumptions.
(3) when a statute or contract provides for the recovery of
attorneys' fees, prospective attorneys' fees must be included in
the assessment of the amount in controversy.
For these reasons, the district court's order remanding this action
to the state court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the
district court.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' October 21, 2019
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxkyu7rx from
Leagle.com.
WESTERN EXPRESS: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Medina Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Medina and Joseph Smith, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated current and former employees v. WESTERN
EXPRESS, INC., a California Corporation, d/b/a WESTERN EXPRESS
TRANSAPORT OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; WESTERN EXPRESS TRANSPORTER'S INC.,
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 5:19-cv-02390 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Dec. 12,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for California Labor Code
violations stemming from the Defendants' failure to provide all
timely meal period, to pay all hours worked, including minimum wage
and straight time, to timely pay all wages to terminated employees,
and to furnish accurate statements and maintain required records.
The Defendants did not have legally compliant polices or practices
providing adequate and duty-free meal periods for the Plaintiffs,
nor did the Defendants have legally compliant polices or practice
regarding the timing of meal periods. The Defendants also did not
have any policies or practices to properly record whether the
Plaintiff and the class were taking their required meal periods,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as truck drivers,
non-exempt, hourly employees.
The Defendants are in the business of commercial trucking, freight
transportation, and logistics.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
Kieran Hartley, Esq.
RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90505
Phone: (310) 961-9600
Fax: (310) 961-9694
Email: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
WILLIAM LYON HOMES: Faces Kent Securities Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Lyon Homes,
et al. The case is styled as Michael Kent, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. William Lyon
Homes, William H. Lyon, Mattew R. Zaistm, Douglas K. Ammerman, Eric
A. Anderson, Gary H. Hunt, Matthew R. Niemann, Lynn Carlson Schell,
Thomas F. Harrison, Taylor Morrison Home Corporation, Tower Merger
Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02276-UNA (D. Del., Dec.
13, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Securities Exchange Act.
William Lyon Homes, Inc. provides construction services. The
Company designs, constructs single family homes and buildings, as
well as offers home loan solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
YOUTH OPPORTUNITY: Whitaker Files FLSA Suit in Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Youth Opportunity
Investments LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Whitaker, Travis
Cessor, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. Youth Opportunity Investments LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00155-JM (E.D. Ark., Dec. 13, 2019).
The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Youth Opportunity Investments LLC owns and operates clinical
treatment centers for young people..[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Sanford Law Firm PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ZOGENIX INC: Lake Class Action Still Ongoing in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zogenix, 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, Lake v. Zogenix,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01975-RS.
On April 12, 2019, a plaintiff stockholder filed a class action
lawsuit against the company and certain of its executive officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California captioned Lake v. Zogenix, Case No.
3:19-cv-01975-RS.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors who purchased
our stock between February 6, 2019 and April 8, 2019, and alleges
that certain statements made during this period regarding the
prospects for our New Drug Application for Fintepla were false or
misleading.
The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.
Zogenix said, "We and our executive officers believe the claims
alleged in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Zogenix, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes therapies for the treatment of transformative
central nervous system disorders in the United States. The company
was formerly known as SJ2 Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name
to Zogenix, Inc. in August 2006. Zogenix, Inc. was founded in 2006
and is headquartered in Emeryville, California.
*********
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 ***