/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200106.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 4
Headlines
99 CENTS: Faces Martinez Suit in California Over Violation of ADA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mohammed Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
AMERICOLD REALTY: Contreras Class Cert. Hearing Set for April
AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Hernandez Labor Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Suit Underway
ASSISTANCE BY IMPROV: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in New York
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending
AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Lammert Suit
AVEDRO INC: Continues to Defend Glaukos Merger-Related Suits
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend Brach Family Foundation Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action
AXON ENTERPRISE: Bid to Dismiss Richey Consumer Class Suit Pending
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: MOU Reached in California Securities Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Suarez Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Accrues $3MM Related to Depositor's Suit
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Wants Suit by SI Financial Shareholder Tossed
BEST BUDZ: Colorado District Dismisses Lee FLSA Suit with Prejudice
BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending
BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Certify Plan and CTF Classes Pending
BRAMER'S BRAZILIAN: Pereira Seeks to Recover OT Wages for Cooks
CAMC HEALTH: A. H. Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
CAPITAL ONE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Nayab FCRA Lawsuit
CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway
CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway
COMMUNITY CARE: Vitasek Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
CV SCIENCES: Colette Sues Over Unlawful Sale of CBD Products
DELTA AIR: Donoff Seeks to Certify Class
DROPBOX INC: Faces 6 Class Suits over IPO
ECOLAB INC: Andrews Liability Suit Removed to C.D. California
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rodriguez Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
FAT BRANDS: Response to 2nd Amended Suit in "Vignola" Due Jan. 14
FAT BRANDS: Status Conference in Rojany Suit Set for Jan. 9
FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due February 28
FIRST BANCORP: Torres Class Suit Tossed
FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
GOPRO INC: Settlement of 2016 Shareholder Suit Has Final OK
HARRIS, TX: Stauber Seeks Overtime Pay for Nonexempt Employees
HOUSTON BAPTIST: Compelled to Reply to Discovery Sought in Hicks
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Action Ongoing
INFINITE PERSONAL: Faces De Varona Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
J2 GLOBAL: Davis Neurology Class Action Ongoing
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court Dismisses Ponzo Suit Without Prejudice
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit over Race Bias Ongoing
JONES FINANCIAL: Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif. Still Ongoing
JR ENGINEERING: Conditional Certification of Roberts Suit Ruled On
K & E RESOURCES: Simmons Seeks Overtime Pay for General Laborers
KENCO LOGISTIC: Cal. App. Reversed Dismissal of Young Lawsuit
LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid in Miller Energy Litig. Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Dismisses Derivative Stockholders Suit
LOUISIANA HEALTH: Denial of Bid to Intervene in OGHA Suit Affirmed
MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Patai Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MATRIX MEDICAL: Mizrahi Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: $300K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Moodie FCRA Suit
MDL 2543: Balhoff Named Mediator in New GM Ignition Switch Suit
MERCHANT EXCHANGE: Cal. App. Flips Demurrer to O'Grady Complaint
METROSTAFF INC: Williams Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
MICHAEL PAGE: Jordan Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
MILACRON HOLDINGS: Faces Hillenbrand Merger-Related Suits
MORTON GOLF: Faces Cavanaugh Employment Class Suit in California
MSC MERCHANT: Faces Abante Rooter Suit Over Auto-Dialed Calls
NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Employee Fund's Suit Underway
NANTHEALTH INC: Settlement Reached in Deora Class Suit
NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending
NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
NCAA: Rucker Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Stallworth Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety
NCL CORP: Appeal on Dismissal in Phillips Suit Pending
NCS PEARSON: Schacke Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: GTx Merger-Related Suits Dismissed
PFIZER INC: Consolidated Class Suit v. Array BioPharma Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Dropped from Adalimumab Biosimilars Litigation
PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Harbison et al. Seek to Certify Class
PHILLIPS CHEVROLET: Snyder Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Texts
POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Camacho Class Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Motion for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Unit Still Faces Torres Class Action in Puerto Rico
PRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.
PROSHARES TRUST II: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
PT CHICAGO: Fails to Provide RLTO Separate Summary, Olabisi Says
QUIKTRAK INC: Wallace Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
RANCHHODRAI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Arosemena Says
RBC CAPITAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in Luis Securities Suit Pending
RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending
RIPPY'S INVESTORS: Miller Seeks OT Wages for Tip-Credited Staff
ROBINSON NURSING: Arbitration Denial in Phillips Suit Reversed
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of Carroll FEHA Suit
SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION: Calhoun Suit Moved to N.D. West Virginia
SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Fife Class Action
SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Good Class Action
SCIPLAY CORP: Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit Ongoing
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
SKECHERS USA: Hearing This Month on Bid to Compel Arbitration
SKECHERS USA: Mediation in Wilk Class Suit Set for Jan. 27
SMASHBURGER IP: Court Issues Protective Order in Galvan Suit
ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY: Ware Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in Anderson Class Action Denied
SWEPI LP: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Rogers Suit
THRASHER BUSCHMANN: Court Dismisses Amended Gunn FDCPA Suit
TRILOGY WAREHOUSE: McClellan Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
TRIPOLI GOURMET: Rojas Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Employees
TUSCAWILLA REALTY: Pitts Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
TWO RIVER: Parshall Class Suit Filed over OceanFirst Merger
UBIQUITI INC: Settlement Reached in NY Securities Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: Appeal in Securities Class Suit in Maryland Pending
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Patel Class Action in Maryland
UNDER ARMOUR: Suit over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Relyea Says
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File 2nd Amended Complaint
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, McElroy Claims
UNLOCKED BUSINESS: Abante Rooter Sues Over Auto-Dialed Calls
USF REDDAWAY: Rivera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in CCERF Suit
WIWI 1 NAIL: Li FLSA Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. New York
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 76 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR Pending
YELP INC: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Stays Karl Labor Class Suit
*********
99 CENTS: Faces Martinez Suit in California Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 99 Cents Only Stores,
LLC. The case is captioned as Marisa Martinez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10198-GW-SK (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 2, 2019).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George H. Wu.
The suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act.
99 Cents is an American price-point retailer chain based in
Commerce, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
Eric David Zard, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
117 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (626) 550-1250
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: ekim@carlsonlynch.com
ezard@carlsonlynch.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mohammed Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case captioned HASIM A. MOHAMMED, Plaintiff,
v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01540-EJD
(N.D. Cal.) to state court.
On Feb. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff initiated the lawsuit in Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the Defendant and certain
unnamed Doe Defendants, alleging violations of California Labor
Code sections governing meal and rest breaks, recordkeeping and
timeliness of wage payments, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"). Plaintiff resides in California. The
Defendant is a Delaware corporation doing business in California.
The "Relevant Time Period" is defined as beginning four years prior
to the filing of the action until judgment is entered. The
Complaint defines an "Hourly Employee Class" of all persons
employed by Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any
other third parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California
during the Relevant Time Period.
There are also four sub-classes: (1) a Meal Period Sub-Class of all
Hourly Employee Class members who worked in a shift in excess of
five hours during the Relevant Time Period; (2) a Rest Period
Sub-Class of all Hourly Employee Class members who worked a shift
of at least three and one-half hours during the Relevant Time
Period; (3) a Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class of all Hourly
Employee Class members employed by the Defendants in California
during the period beginning one year before the filing of the
action and ending when final judgment is entered; and (4) a Waiting
Time Penalties Sub-Class of all Hourly Employee Class members who
separated from their employment with Defendants during the period
beginning three years before the filing of this action and ending
when final judgment is entered. There is also a UCL Class defined
as all Hourly Employee Class members employed by the Defendants in
California during the Relevant Time Period.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
employee from approximately Jan. 17, 2000 through Feb. 28, 2018.
On many occasions, the Plaintiff and the putative class members
were not provided meal periods due to (1) the Defendant's policy of
not scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift; (2)
chronically understaffing each work shift; (3) imposing so much
work that it made it "unlikely" that an employee would be able to
take breaks; and (4) no formal written meal period policy that
encouraged employees to take meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff
and the putative class members were provided meal periods when they
were not otherwise occupied with job duties; however, they were
required to interrupt their meal periods and to perform job duties
when a plane arrived. They were neither instructed nor required to
clock out for meal periods as the Defendant had a policy of
automatically deducting one hour from their hours worked.
In other words, the Defendant scheduled the Plaintiff and the
putative class members to work nine hours but deducted an hour for
purported meal periods in order to avoid having to pay the class
members overtime. The Defendant seldom, if ever, provided the
Plaintiff and the putative class with a one-hour uninterrupted,
duty-free meal period. As a result of the Defendant's policy, the
Plaintiff and the putative class were regularly not provided with
uninterrupted meal periods.
Moreover, the Plaintiff and the putative class "were regularly not
provided" with rest periods of at least 10 minutes for each
four-hour work period for the same reasons they were not provided
meal periods. The Plaintiff and the putative class were provided
rest periods only to the extent they were not occupied with their
jobs. They worked through their rest periods in order to complete
their assignments on time. They were not provided with accurate
wage statements as mandated by California Labor Code section 226.
The statements that were provided were inaccurate because they
failed to include overtime, as well as meal and/or rest period
premiums.
Plaintiff asserts six causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal
periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay
hourly and overtime wages; (4) failure to provide accurate written
wage statements; (5) failure to pay timely final wages; and (6)
violation of the UCL by engaging in unlawful business practices.
The Defendant removed the action to the California District Court
on the basis of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), as amended by the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff now moves to
remand the action, asserting that the Defendant has failed to
establish the requisite amount in controversy.
Judge Davila finds that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
requirement for CAFA jurisdiction has been met in the case. The
Defendant's calculations are based upon the number of ramp agents
currently employed in California. It is unclear, however, whether
the number of ramp agents currently employed is below, above, or
equal to the number of employees encompassed in the proposed
"Hourly Employee Class," defined as all persons employed by the
Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third
parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the
Relevant Time Period. There is no evidence in the record to
substantiate the Defendant's assertion.
The Defendant's amount-in-controversy calculation is also flawed
because it uses the lowest base hourly wage for a ramp agent under
the current collective bargaining agreement ($14.18 per hour)
instead of the hourly wage for the class members during the
Relevant Time Period, Judge Davila finds. There is no evidentiary
basis upon which to assume $14.18 per hour is a reasonable estimate
of what putative class members were paid throughout the Relevant
Time Period, which extends back four years to February of 2015.
The Defendant's calculation is not adequately supported by real
evidence or reasonable assumptions based upon that evidence.
Lastly, the Defendant invites the District Court to consider the
Plaintiff's additional causes of action, which it contends further
increases the amount in controversy above the jurisdictional
minimum. More specifically, by its calculation, a 20% violation
rate for just the third cause of action for failure to pay hourly
and overtime wages raises the amount in controversy by
approximately $4,894,836.96. Judge Davila declines to consider the
new calculation because it was not included in the Defendant's
Notice of Removal and the time to amend has expired.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Davila granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/PM7wh4 from Leagle.com.
Hasim A. Mohammed, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & William Matthew Pao --
william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.
American Airlines, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Robert Alan Siegel -- rsiegel@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP;
Susannah Kelly Howard -- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP;
& Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.
AMERICOLD REALTY: Contreras Class Cert. Hearing Set for April
-------------------------------------------------------------
Americold Realty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court
overseeing the class action suit initiated by Jose Contreras has
set a class certification hearing for April 27, 2020.
On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Contreras (a former employee)
filed a putative class action against the Company in the San
Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1)
failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3)
failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal
periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed
to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated
California unfair business practices.
On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative
Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the
case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
On May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit for civil
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
in the San Bernardino Superior Court against the Company, Case No.
CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual allegations that are
asserted in the complaint.
The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino
Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his
complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period
violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar
allegations that are asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel
later dismissed plaintiff's vacation wages claim from his first
amended complaint.
The Company denies the plaintiff's claims and denies that plaintiff
and the putative class members have been damaged in any respect or
in any amount as a result of any act or omission by the Company.
The Company also denies that this case is appropriate for class
treatment and further asserts, among other grounds, that this case
is unmanageable as a PAGA representative action.
The court has set a class certification hearing for April 27, 2020.
The parties agreed to mediate the case.
Americold said, "The Company believes the ultimate outcome of this
matter will not have a material adverse impact on its condensed
consolidated financial statements."
Americold Realty Trust is a leading provider of cold storage
services headquartered in Atlanta, and is organized as a real
estate investment trust. The firm is focused on the ownership,
operation, development and acquisition of temperature-controlled
real estate. Americold also provides additional services including
warehouse handling and value-add logistics services to manage the
entire temperature-controlled supply chain.
AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Hernandez Labor Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as KARINA HERNANDEZ, individually
and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS CORP., a Georgia corporation, d.b.a.
SAFETYNET WIRELESS, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
BCV-19-103076, was removed from the Kern County Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Fresno) on Dec 2, 2019.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01689-LJO-JLT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.
The suit alleges violation of the California Labor Code.
AmeriMex provides an e-commerce portal for Hispanic merchants to
sell telecom-related products to their customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
2815 Townsgate Rd., Suite 130
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
Defendant AmeriMex is represented by:
Kimberly C. Carter, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 438-1298
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: kimberly.carter@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
Tahir Lynn Boykins, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-6100
E-mail: tboykins@kelleydrye.com
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-00372 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an
order dated December 19, 2019, granting with leave to amend, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Lead Plaintiff's amended complaint.
Arlo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that beginning on
December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo Technologies,
Inc. filed six putative securities class action complaints in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, and one
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its executives and
directors.
Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and NETGEAR, Inc.
The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019;
Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10,
2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1,
2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed
February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019.
The action pending in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372, filed January 22, 2019.
The complaints generally allege that the Company failed to
adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales
trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased Arlo common stock
issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents.
In the six state court actions, the court initially issued an order
deeming the cases complex and temporarily stayed discovery. The six
state actions were then consolidated by the court, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 1, 2019.
On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending
resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap
between the claims. The court set a case management conference for
January 17, 2020 so the parties can provide an update regarding the
status of the Federal Action.
In the Federal Action, four investors filed motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2019, the court appointed a shareholder
named Matis Nayman to serve as lead plaintiff and the law firm of
Keller Lenkner LLC as lead counsel.
On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
failing to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse
sales trends surrounding the Company's IPO. The amended complaint
also names as defendants the underwriters in the IPO and NETGEAR,
Inc.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 6, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss on
September 6, 2019, and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2019.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for December 5,
2019.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
discovery is stayed until the court rules on the motion to
dismiss.
Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor
the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network
Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and
Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was
incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.
ASSISTANCE BY IMPROV: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assistance By Improv
II, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as RAMON RODRIGUEZ, MEGAN
COMPTON COMPTON, INDIVIDUALLY, REPRESENTATIVELY, AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. ASSISTANCE BY
IMPROV II, INC., JOSEPH WRIGHT, HAMOOD H. MAALIK, JAMES ATKINS AND
TODD WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 26875/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 2,
2019).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Eddie J. McShan.
Assistance by Improv II is a non-profit organization whose mission
was to provide quality of life services to displaced individuals.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
DANIEL SZALKIEWICZ & ASSOC
325 W 38th Street, Suite 810
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 796-1007
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Astec Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, City of Taylor
General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS, is pending.
The Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed on February 1, 2019, as amended on
August 26, 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.
The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and that the individual defendants
are control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and October 22,
2018 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.
The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on
October 25, 2019.
The Company is unable to determine whether or not a future loss
will be incurred due to this litigation, or estimate a range of
loss, if any, at this time.
Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate
processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing
industries in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Lammert Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied
Auto-Owners' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations in
GREGORY J. LAMMERT, JAMIE LAMMERT, LARRY REASONS, and SUSAN
REASONS, Plaintiffs, v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00819 (M.D. Tenn.).
The litigation arose out of Auto-Owners' practice of depreciating
portions of labor cost when determining replacement costs under
actual cash value homeowner and dwelling insurance policies. These
include policies purchased by Plaintiffs Gregory and Jamie Lammert,
and Larry and Susan Reasons.
The debatable propriety of that practice led the Court to deny
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and
Auto-Owners' Motion to Dismiss in favor of certifying the following
question to the Tennessee Supreme Court: Under Tennessee law, may
an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a
portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines
actual cash value as the cost to replace damaged property with new
property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of
depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior
to the loss, or (2) states that actual cash value includes a
deduction for depreciation?
That court graciously accepted the request, and answered the
question that the insurance company cannot withhold a portion of
the labor costs as depreciation under either the Lammert's or the
Reasons' policy.
At the time the Court certified the question, the Amended Complaint
contained a straight-forward breach of contract claim that sought
compensatory and punitive damages, plus declaratory and injunctive
relief. They also putatively represented a class containing all
other similarly situated insureds who received 'actual cash value'
payments from Auto-Owners for direct physical loss to a dwelling or
other structure located in Tennessee in which the cost of repair or
replacement labor was depreciated.
After the favorable ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court, the
Plaintiffs again amended their complaint. The Second Amended
Complaint retained the breach of contract claim and request for
punitive damages, but also added a statutory bad faith claim. It
also arguably expanded the proposed class period.
Now, before the Court is Auto-Owners' fully-briefed Motion to
Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. In the motion,
Auto-Owners argues that the Plaintiffs' bad faith, fraudulent
concealment, and punitive damages claims have failed to state
causes of action for which relief can be granted; and that the
Plaintiffs' class allegations should be stricken to the extent they
relate to the bad faith claim and to the extent the Plaintiffs seek
to define a class period that extends beyond the one-year
contractual limitations period contained in Auto-Owners' policies.
Judge Crenshaw holds that Auto-Owners believes that the Plaintiffs'
claims for fraudulent concealment, bad faith, and punitive damages
distract from the core issues left in the case, which is whether
Auto-Owners breached its contracts with the Plaintiffs, and whether
that question is suitable for class resolution. To get back on
track, Auto-Owners submits that the Court should dismiss these
claims now, pare back the class allegations, and focus the case on
issues properly in dispute. Auto-Owners may have a point, but it
has chosen improper vehicles (Rules 12(b)(6) and (f)) to steer the
case back on course, if it is indeed going down the wrong path.
For now, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs are at the controls.
That said, any forthcoming motion to certify the case as a class
action should be informed by the observations the Court has made in
the Memorandum Opinion.
Leaving aside the alleged procedural deficiencies claimed by the
Plaintiffs, the Judge agrees with many of the points raised by
Auto-Owners, but its request for dismissal or to strike is
premature.
Accordingly, Judge Crenshaw denied Auto-Owners' Motion to Dismiss
and to Strike Class Allegations.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/CGiPEc from
Leagle.com.
Gregory J. Lammert, Jamie Lammert, Larry Reasons & Susan Reasons,
Plaintiffs, represented by David McMullan --
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., Don Barrett --
donbarrettpa@gmail.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., J. Brandon McWherter,
Gilbert McWherter Scott & Bobbitt PLC & T. Joseph Snodgrass --
jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP.
Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles C. McLaurin -- cmclaurin@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, John S. Hicks --
jhicks@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, PC, Peter J. Schwingler -- peter.schwingler@stinson.com
-- Stinson LLP, Timothy P. Griffin -- timothy.griffin@stinson.com
-- Stinson LLP, Todd A. Noteboom -- todd.noteboom@stinson.com --
Stinson LLP & Zane Gilmer -- zane.gilmer@stinson.com -- Stinson
Leonard Street LLP.
AVEDRO INC: Continues to Defend Glaukos Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Avedro, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on November 8, 2019, that the company
is facing four lawsuits related to its merger with Glaukos
Corporation.
On August 7, 2019, Avedro, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Glaukos Corporation, a Delaware corporation and Atlantic Merger
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Glaukos ("Merger Sub") pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with
and into Avedro, with Avedro continuing as the surviving
corporation (the "Merger").
Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement and as of the
date of this Form 8-K, four lawsuits have been filed by alleged
Avedro stockholders challenging the Merger. The first and fourth
lawsuits, putative class action complaints, are captioned Kent v.
Avedro, Inc., et. al, No. 1:19-cv-01845-UNA (D. Del. filed Oct. 1,
2019) and Thompson v. Avedro, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-02075 (D.
Del. filed Oct. 31, 2019). The second and third lawsuits, brought
by plaintiffs individually, are captioned Payne v. Avedro, Inc., et
al, 1:19-cv-02019 (D. Del. filed Oct. 24, 2019) and Bushansky v.
Avedro, Inc. et al, 1:19-cv-10015 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 29, 2019).
The Payne and Bushansky complaints name as defendants Avedro and
each member of the Avedro Board. The Kent and Thompson complaints
additionally name as defendants former Avedro directors Dr. Gilbert
H. Kliman and Thomas W. Burns, as well as Glaukos and Merger Sub.
Avedro, Inc. is a commercial-stage ophthalmic medical technology
company focused on treating corneal ectatic disorders and improving
vision to reduce dependency on eyeglasses or contact lenses. The
company's proprietary Avedro Corneal Remodeling Platform is
designed to strengthen, stabilize and reshape the cornea utilizing
corneal cross-linking in minimally invasive and non-invasive
outpatient procedures to treat corneal ectatic disorders and
correct refractive conditions, which are caused by changes in the
shape of the eye that prevent light from focusing on the retina,
causing blurred vision. The company's Avedro Corneal Remodeling
Platform is comprised of the company's KXL and Mosaic systems,
eachof which delivers ultraviolet A, or UVA, light, and a suite of
proprietary single-use riboflavin drug formulations, which, when
applied together to the cornea, induce a biochemical reaction
called corneal collagen cross-linking, or corneal cross-linking.
Its KXL system in combination with its Photrexa drug formulations,
which the company launched in the United States in September 2016,
is the first and only minimally invasive product offering approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, indicated for
the treatment of progressive keratoconus and corneal ectasia
following refractive surgery. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend Brach Family Foundation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
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's
COI rate increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable 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 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 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 in New York
state court.
AXA Equitable is vigorously defending each of these matters.
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by
Richard T. O'Donnell.
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, 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 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'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'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 Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.
AXON ENTERPRISE: Bid to Dismiss Richey Consumer Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Axon Enterprise, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Douglas Richey
is still pending.
The company is a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit
previously filed and dismissed in California in 2018 and now
refiled in the District of Nevada on April 9, 2019 (Case No.
3:1-cv-00192) by consumer weapon purchaser Douglas Richey.
The case alleges the TASER Pulse, X2 and X26P CEWs have a faulty
safety switch based on Richey's Pulse allegedly discharging inside
its neoprene case in a jacket pocket without injury.
Any such discharge was likely due to static electricity, as
disclosed in the company's consumer warnings.
Axon said, "We will vigorously defend this claim and the propriety
of any class certification. Our motion to dismiss is pending."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted
electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through
two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon
Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: MOU Reached in California Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banc of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a memorandum of
understanding has been entered into by the parties in the class
action suit entitled, In re Banc of California Securities
Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118 AG, consolidated with SACV
17-00138 AG.
On September 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the lead plaintiff to settle class action
lawsuits that were previously consolidated in the United District
Court for the Central District of California under the caption In
re Banc of California Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118
AG, consolidated with SACV 17-00138 AG.
Under the terms of the MOU, the Company's insurance carriers would
pay $19.75 million, which would be distributed to shareholders who
purchased Company stock between April 15, 2016 and January 20,
2017, after payment of attorney's fees and costs, to be determined
by the Court. The Company would not be required to contribute any
cash to the settlement payments.
Pursuant to the settlement, the action against the Company would be
dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff would also dismiss its claims
against the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Steven Sugarman.
While the Company does not believe the plaintiff's claims are
meritorious, the Company believes that ending the costs and
distraction of the litigation is in the best interests of the
Company and its shareholders.
The settlement and the dismissals are subject to approval by the
Court and meeting certain conditions, and there are no assurances
that Court approval will be obtained or that those conditions will
be satisfied.
If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, members of the
class will be provided notice and an opportunity to object or opt
out.
Following the notice and opportunity for objections and opt outs,
the Court will schedule a fairness hearing at which the Court will
determine whether the settlement shall be finally approved. The
foregoing description of the settlement does not purport to be
complete and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to, the complete text of the settlement stipulation that
will be filed with the Court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Banc of California, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Banc of California, National Association that provides banking
products and services in the United States. The company offers
deposit products, including checking, savings, money market,
retirement, and interest and noninterest-bearing demand accounts,
as well as certificates of deposit. The company was formerly known
as First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to Banc of
California, Inc. in July 2013. Banc of California, Inc. was founded
in 1941 and is headquartered in Santa Ana, California.
BANK OF AMERICA: Suarez Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part
and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the
case captioned ARIANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01202-LB. (N.D. Cal.).
Under the putative class action, named plaintiff Arianna Suarez
sued her former employer, Bank of America, for state-law
wage-and-hour violations. Ms. Suarez did not review her final pay
check or wage statements and was unaware that her final paycheck
included a sum equivalent to 124.17 hours of vacation pay. She
concedes that she was paid her unused accrued wages when she was
terminated.
The First Amended Complaint (FAC) has the following class claims:
(1) claim one, charging a failure to compensate for all hours
worked (including work "off the clock" and overtime wages), in
violation of the California Labor Code; (2) claim two, charging a
failure to pay minimum wage, in violation of the California Labor
Code; (3) claim three, charging a failure to provide meal-and-rest
breaks, in violation of the California Labor Code; (4) claim five,
charging a failure to pay vacation time at termination, in
violation of the California Labor Code; (5) claim six, charging a
failure to pay final wages on time, in violation of the California
Labor Code; (5) claim eight, charging a failure to provide accurate
wage-and-hour statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code; and (6) claim twenty, charging unfair business practices, in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
Bank of America moved for partial summary judgment on two of the
class claims - Claims Six and Eight.
Claim Six: Failure to Pay Final Wages on Time
In claim six, the plaintiff claimed that Bank of America willfully
failed to pay her final wages when it terminated her, in violation
of sections 201-203 of the California Labor Code.
Bank of America moved for summary judgment on the ground that the
claim is predicated on the plaintiff's claim for unpaid vacation
wages (individual claim five), which she now concedes were paid
fully, and because she has not produced admissible evidence that
shows there is a genuine issue of material fact that Bank of
America acted willfully when it did not pay her for the
meal-and-rest breaks (class claim three).
The plaintiff does not dispute the unpaid-vacation-wages argument
but counters that there are material fact disputes about whether
Bank of America acted intentionally when it did not pay for her
meal-and-rest breaks.
Judge Beeler grants the motion to the extent that it is predicated
on unpaid vacation leave and otherwise denies the motion.
Claim Eight: Inaccurate Wage Statements
In claim eight, the plaintiff claimed that Bank of America did not
provide an accurate itemized statement for each pay period that
reflected actual hours worked, in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Section 226.
Bank of America moved for summary judgment on four grounds: (1) the
plaintiff's claim for statutory penalties is barred by a one-year
statute of limitations; (2) she did not suffer injury, which is a
necessary element for any claim for damages under section 226(e);
(3) the reporting requirement in section 226(a) of the Labor Code
applies only to wages that were actually paid (not wages that a
suing party thinks should be paid), and the wage statements here
are accurate; and (4) Bank of America's violations were not knowing
and intentional, which is a necessary element under section
226(e).
Judge Beeler grants the motion only on the ground that the
plaintiff's claim for statutory penalties is barred by the one-year
statute of limitations and otherwise denies the motion.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxnhctdn from Leagle.com
Arianna Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Noel Ilg -
silg@ilglegal.com - ILG Legal Office, PC, Frank Joseph Zeccola -
frank.zeccola@gmail.com - Ilg Legal Office, P.C., George L. Lin ,
ILG Legal Office, PC, & Tracy Scanlan , Ilg Legal Office, P.C.,1001
Bayhill Dr Fl 2, San Bruno, CA, 94066-3061
Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sylvia Jihae
Kim -skim@mcguirewoods.com - McGuire Woods LLP, Kerri H. Sakaue -
ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP & Michael David Mandel
- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP.
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Accrues $3MM Related to Depositor's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
had an accrual of $3 million as of September 30, 2019, related to
the class action suit initiated by a Berkshire Bank depositor.
On April 28, 2016, the Company and the Bank were served with a
complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, Springfield Division.
The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor,
who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported
class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder,
among other matters.
On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims
under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. On January 4,
2019, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter on a class-wide basis.
Among other terms, the agreement in principle provides that the
Company will pay a total of $3.0 million in exchange for the
dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims that have been
or could have been asserted in the lawsuit on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members.
On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Parties' fully-executed
Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement") with the Court
together with her unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.
On July 24, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement, and issued an Order that notice of the Settlement be
given to all Settlement Class Members.
The Company had an accrual of $3 million as of September 30, 2019,
in anticipation of the completion of the Settlement sometime during
the first quarter of 2020.
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Wants Suit by SI Financial Shareholder Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the joint
motion to dismiss the class action initiated against SI Financial
Group, Inc., is still pending.
On February 9, 2019, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
by a purported SI Financial Group, Inc. shareholder. On June 26,
2019, the Company received notice of a verified consolidated
amended complaint in this action, which was filed after
consolidation and elimination of two additional suits filed in the
same Court by other former shareholders of SI Financial.
The lawsuit purports to be filed as a putative class action lawsuit
against SI Financial, the individual former members of the SI
Financial board of directors, and the Company, in connection with
the Company's announced intention to acquire and merge with SI
Financial.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly-situated SI
Financial shareholders, generally alleges that the registration
statement filed with the SEC on February 4, 2019 contains
materially misleading omissions or misrepresentations in violation
of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duty to SI Financial shareholders and were
unjustly enriched by the subject merger transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
Of note, SI Financial merged with and into the Company on May 17,
2019, and ceased to have any further independent legal existence at
that time. The Company and the individual Defendants deny the
allegations contained in the verified consolidated amended
complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
On July 26, 2019, the Company and the individual Defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this litigation.
Berkshire said, "There are no other active cases proceeding against
the Company or the individual Defendants in regard to the SI
Financial merger on May 17, 2019."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
BEST BUDZ: Colorado District Dismisses Lee FLSA Suit with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned COURTNEY LEE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUDZ LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, and TYSON RINGSTROM, an individual,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-02430-KMT (D. Colo.), Magistrate
Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part the
parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss
Action with Prejudice.
Generally, in an FLSA action, if settlement approval is required,
the court must review the proposed settlement to ensure (1) the
litigation involves a bona fide dispute, (2) the proposed
settlement is fair and equitable to all parties concerned, and (3)
the proposed settlement contains a reasonable award of attorneys'
fees. In the District, however, the law with respect to requiring
court approval of FLSA actions is somewhat in flux. Indeed, as the
parties correctly observe, several recent opinions have held that,
absent special circumstances, FLSA settlements do not require court
approval.
Magistrate Judge Tafoya agrees that the peculiar opt-in nature of
an FLSA collective action anticipates that all parties who settle
are actively participating and are represented by counsel.
However, this does not necessarily mean that all opt-ins are
readily available to give consent to a settlement. There is no
question that a collective action under the FLSA is distinct from a
Rule 23 class, which is an opt-out scenario where judicial review
of compromises is necessary because the parties affected -- the
class members or the incompetent persons -- are not directly before
the court nor have they necessarily participated in the decision to
settle.
The case involves a putative collective composed of two persons,
the Plaintiff and her boyfriend, the one opt-in, Michael Somma,
against their employers, the Defendants. While the parties have
requested that the Court reviews the settlement agreement, they
have not provided the Court with any in depth analysis of the
Lynn's Foods factors. Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge can
ascertain from the Confidential Settlement Agreement that both the
Plaintiff and the one opt-in member participated directly in
settlement negotiations. The Agreement involves payment to to
Plaintiff, the one opt-in, and their attorney.
Significantly, there does not appear to be a defect, in either the
Agreement, itself, or in the settlement process, that would require
an inquiry as to whether the dispute is bona fide. Thus, the case
sits squarely in the camp of cases that do not require judicial
approval of the settlement. Accordingly, there is no need to
review the merits of the Agreement in the case, and the Magistrate
Judge therefore, declines to do so.
For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Tafoya granted in part and
denied in part the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement
Agreement and Dismiss Action with Prejudice. The Magistrate Judge
denied the request for the Court to approve the Confidential
Settlement Agreement, and granted the request to dismiss the action
with prejudice, based on the parties' successful settlement
negotiations. The case is dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ljzjRG from Leagle.com.
Courtney Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn --
mkuhn@lks.law -- Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Paul Forrest Lewis --
plewis@lks.law -- Lewis Kuhn Swan PC & Andrew Edward Swan --
aswan@lks.law -- Lewis Kuhn Swan PC.
Best Budz, LLC, a Colorado limited liablilty company & Tyson
Ringstrom, an individual, Defendants, represented by Stuart
Frederick Knight -- Stuart.Knight@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder
LLP.
BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' appeal
from the court's order of dismissal in the iShares ETF-related suit
is still pending.
On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its
advisory subsidiaries, and the directors and certain officers of
the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court.
The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the
"ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by
the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a
"flash crash."
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages.
The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on
January 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the
plaintiffs' claims.
On September 18, 2017, the court issued a decision dismissing the
remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day bench trial. On December
1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit,
which remains pending.
The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.
BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Certify Plan and CTF Classes Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion
to certify the Plan and Collective Trust Funds (CTF) classes
remains pending.
On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and
various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California by a former
employee on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries in the
BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan from April 5, 2011 to the present.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their
duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things,
offering investment options that were overly expensive,
underperformed unaffiliated peer funds, focused disproportionately
on active versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated
in investment options managed by BlackRock.
On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which, among other things, added as defendants certain current and
former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment
Committees.
The Amended Complaint also included a new purported class claim on
behalf of investors in certain Collective Trust Funds ("CTFs")
managed by BTC.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BTC, as fiduciary to the
CTFs, engaged in self-dealing by, most significantly, selecting
itself as the securities lending agent on terms that the plaintiffs
claim were excessive. The Amended Complaint also alleged that
BlackRock took undue risks in its management of securities lending
cash reinvestment vehicles during the financial crisis.
On August 23, 2018, the court granted permission to the plaintiffs
to file a Second Amended Complaint which added as defendants the
BlackRock, Inc. Management Development and Compensation Committee,
the Plan's independent investment consultant and the Plan’s
Administrative Committee and its members.
On October 22, 2018, BlackRock filed a motion to dismiss the SAC,
and on June 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify both the Plan and the CTF classes.
On September 3, 2019, the court granted BlackRock's motion to
dismiss part of the plaintiffs' claim seeking to recover alleged
losses in the securities lending vehicles, but denied the motion to
dismiss in all other respects.
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Plan and CTF classes remains
pending. The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are
without merit.
BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.
BRAMER'S BRAZILIAN: Pereira Seeks to Recover OT Wages for Cooks
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL T. PEREIRA, and other similarly situated individuals v.
BRAMER'S BRAZILIAN CUISINE INC, WESLEY HELGERT, and LUCIMARA
HELGERT, Case No. 9:19-cv-81615-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act
The Plaintiff was employed as a cook performing the same or similar
duties as that of those other similarly situated cooks whom the
Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week allegedly
without overtime compensation.
Founded in 2018, Bramer's Brazilian Cuisine provides classic and
delicious Brazilian food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
CAMC HEALTH: A. H. Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled A. H. and Adriana Flemming, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMC Health
System, Inc. doing business as: Charleston Area Medical Center,
Inc.; Vandalia Insurance Company; Zurich American Insurance
Company, Beazley Insurance Company, Inc., and RSUI Indemnity
Company, Defendants, Case No. 19-C-987, was removed from the
Kanawha County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston) on Dec. 4, 2019.
The Southern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-00858 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of insurance related laws.
CAMC is a kidney transplant center in West Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Benjamin Salango, Esq.
PRESTON & SALANGO
P. O. Box 3084
Charleston, WV 25331
Telepone: (304) 342-0512
Facsimle: (304) 342-0513
E-mail: bsalango@wvlawyer.com
- and -
David H. Carriger, Esq.
CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO
Law and Arts Center West
500 Randolph Street
Charleston, WV 25302
Telephone: (304) 343-4323
Facsimile: (304) 344-3684
E-mail: dcarriger@calwelllaw.com
- and -
Holly G. DiCocco, Esq.
Robert V. Berthold , Jr.
BERTHOLD LAW FIRM
P. O. Box 3508
Charleston, WV 25335
Telephone: (304) 345-5700
Facsimile: (304) 345-5703
E-mail: hgd@bertholdlaw.com
rvb@bertholdlaw.com
- and -
L. Dante DiTrapano, Esq.
CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO
Law and Arts Center West
500 Randolph Street
Charleston, WV 25302
Telephone: (304) 343-4323
Facsimile: (304) 344-3684
E-mail: dditrapano@cldlaw.com
- and -
Marvin W. Masters, Esq.
THE MASTERS LAW FIRM
181 Summers Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 342-3106
Facsimile: (304) 342-3189
E-mail: mwm@themasterslawfirm.com
- and -
P. Rodney Jackson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON
106 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-7330
E-mail: prodjackson27@yahoo.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles R. Bailey, Esq.
Josef A. Horter, Esq.
BAILEY & WYANT
P. O. Box 3710
Charleston, WV 25337-3710
Telephone: (304) 345-4222
Facsimile: (304) 343-3133
E-mail: cbailey@baileywyant.com
jhorter@baileywyant.com
- and -
Joseph M. Ward, Esq.
William M. Swann, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD
Laidley Tower-Suite 401
500 Lee Street, East
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-0111
Facsimile: (304) 345-0115
E-mail: jward@fbtlaw.com
wswann@fbtlaw.com
CAPITAL ONE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Nayab FCRA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion
reversing a trial court order granting dismissal of the case
captioned FRESHTA Y. NAYAB, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA),
N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-55944, (9th Cir.).
Freshta Nayab appealed the district court's order which dismissed
her Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim with prejudice and
without leave to amend for lack of standing and for failure to
state a claim.
The case presents two issues of first impression for the Ninth
Circuit: (1) whether a consumer suffers a concrete Article III
injury in fact when a third-party obtains her credit report for a
purpose not authorized by the FCRA and (2) whether the
consumer-plaintiff must plead the third-party's actual unauthorized
purpose in obtaining the report to survive a motion to dismiss.
The Appellate Court holds that a consumer suffers a concrete injury
in fact when a third-party obtains her credit report for a purpose
not authorized by the FCRA. The Appellate Court also holds that a
consumer-plaintiff need allege only that her credit report was
obtained for a purpose not authorized by the statute to survive a
motion to dismiss, the defendant has the burden of pleading it
obtained the report for an authorized purpose.
The Appellate Court opines that Nayab has standing to vindicate her
right to privacy under the FCRA when a third-party obtains her
credit report without a purpose authorized by the statute,
regardless, whether the credit report is published or otherwise
used by that third-party.
Moreover, the Appellate Court opines that the district court erred
in holding that Nayab, as the plaintiff, has the burden of pleading
the actual purpose behind Capital One's procurement of her credit
report. A plaintiff need allege only facts giving rise to a
reasonable inference that the defendant obtained his or her credit
report in violation of Section 1681b(f)(1) to meet their burden of
pleading. Requiring otherwise would create an often insurmountable
legal barrier to the protection of the interests the FCRA sought to
protect.
Capital One, as the defendant, has the burden of pleading it had an
authorized purpose to acquire Nayab's credit report.
Because Nayab did not have the burden of pleading Capital One's
actual unauthorized purpose, and because she has alleged facts
sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that Capital One
obtained her credit report in violation of Section 1681b(f)(1),
Nayab stated a plausible claim for relief and the District Court
erred in holding otherwise, the Appellate Court opines.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 31, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ha5e9r from Leagle.com
Alex Asil Mashiri - alexmashiri@yahoo.com - (argued), Mashiri Law
Firm, San Diego, California; Tamim Jami - tamim@jamilaw.com - The
Jami Law Firm P.C., San Diego, California; for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
Hunter R. Eley - heley@dollamir.com - (argued), Lloyd Vu -
lvu@dollamir.com - and Chelsea L. Diaz - cdiaz@dollamir.com - Doll
Amir & Eley LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Ursula
McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor
children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia
Dunham.
On May 26, 2019, the Company, its subsidiary United States
Enrichment Corp., and five other Department of Energy ("DOE")
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth, Ohio,
Gaseous Diffusion Plant site (including, in the case of the
Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises
(the "Portsmouth GDP" site) were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia
Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their
parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham, in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site.
The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current
or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP
site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn's Corner
Middle School from 1993-present.
The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability
should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson
Act.
The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.
CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Ray Pritchard
and Sharon Melick.
On June 28, 2019, the Company, its subsidiary Enrichment Corp. and
four other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the
Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendants in a class action
complaint filed by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site.
The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or
former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site.
The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability
should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson
Act.
The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.
COMMUNITY CARE: Vitasek Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Vitasek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Community Care Health Network, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05722-SPL (D. Ariz., Dec. 3, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in
part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
As part of its business, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights, the lawsuit says. The Defendant
caused thousands of pre-recorded messages to be sent to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
On November 18, 2019, the Defendant allegedly called the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 9845 with a
prerecorded message. Despite having asked the Defendant to stop
calling her, on November 22, 2019, On November 25, 2019 and
December 2, 2019, Defendant again called her, Ms. Vitasek asserts.
Through the action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and Class Members, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendants.
The Defendant is a healthcare company providing in-home and mobile
health care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 786-496-4469
E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 400 4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
CV SCIENCES: Colette Sues Over Unlawful Sale of CBD Products
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELENE COLETTE and LETICIA SHAW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CV SCIENCES, INC., a California
Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-10227 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2019),
seeks to halt the Defendant's unlawful sales and marketing of
cannabidiol products.
The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the
CBD Products throughout the United States, including in the State
of California and Arizona. The Products contain numerous different
flavors and dosages.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's Products are illegal to
sell.
On November 22, 2019, the United States Food & Drug Administration
sent roughly 15 Warning Letters discussing numerous violations of
CBD products, including Dietary Supplement Labeling, Unapproved New
Drugs, Misbranded Drugs, Adulterated Human Foods, Unapproved New
Animal Drugs, and Adultered Animal Foods. All of these violations
of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act make CBD products illegal to
sell, the Plaintiffs contend.
With knowledge of growing consumer demand for CBD Products, the
Defendant has intentionally marketed and sold illegal CBD products.
Defendant's multiple and prominent systematic mislabeling of the
Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business practices
that harms the public, the Plaintiffs argue.
The Plaintiffs are all consumers, who purchased the Defendant's
"CBD Sprays", "CBD Oil Drops", "CBD Gummies", "CBD Capsules", and
"CBD Softgels", all of which are promoted as products containing
cannabidiol (CBD), for personal use and not for resale.
The Plaintiffs assert they and each of the Class members have
suffered an injury in fact caused by the Defendant's false,
fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices, and seek
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-238-1700
E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
klaukaitis@kohnswift.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
1644 Bracken Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: 313 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: 865-247-0080
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
DELTA AIR: Donoff Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, on
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. certifying this proposed Class:
"all Florida citizens who purchased a trip insurance policy
on Delta’s website in Florida within the applicable
limitations period";
2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Leon Cosgrove and Robbins Geller as Class
Counsel.
The Plaintiff and the Class were all victims of identical conduct
through Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s deceptive practice of falsely
representing the cost of trip insurance on its website as a "pass
through" charge, when in fact Delta receives a hidden 50%
commission on a per policy basis.
Delta Air Lines, is doing business in domestic and international
travel, offering airline tickets & flights to over 300 destinations
in 60 countries.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:
Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
John R. Byrne, Esq.
LEON COSGROVE, LLP
255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: 305 740 1986
Facsimile: 305 437 8158
E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
cgold@rgrdlaw.com
bbeall@rgrdlaw.com
DROPBOX INC: Faces 6 Class Suits over IPO
-----------------------------------------
Dropbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against six class action suits related to its initial
public offering (IPO).
Four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5,
2019, September 13, 2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, against the
company , certain of its officers and directors, underwriters of
the company's initial public offering (IPO), and Sequoia Capital
XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated entities.
On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the
Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The six lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting
material information from, the company's IPO registration
statement.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Dropbox said, "We do not currently believe that this matter is
likely to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated
results of operations, cash flows, or our financial position.
However, any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment
or injunctive relief entered against us or any adverse settlement
could materially and adversely impact our business, results of
operations, financial condition, and prospects."
Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software.
The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share
files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves
customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
ECOLAB INC: Andrews Liability Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., et al., removed the case
captioned as SHELLY ANDREWS and PAULA DETERDING, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ECOLAB, INC.;
THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.; KAISER
FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; KAISER PERMANENTE ORANGE COUNTY - ANAHEIM
MEDICAL CENTER; KAISER PERMANENTE SOUTH BAY MEDICAL CENTER; KAISER
PERMANENTE ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER; and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case
No. 19STCV37373 (Filed Oct. 21, 2019), from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division, on Dec. 4, 2019.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-10338 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges causes of action, including strict
liability--design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violations of
California Unfair Competition Law, and violations of California
False Advertising Law.
The Plaintiffs seek restitution in an amount exceeding the sum or
value of $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs.
Ecolab Inc., headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, is an American
global provider of water, hygiene and energy technologies and
services to the food, energy, healthcare, industrial and
hospitality markets. The Permanente Medical Group is the largest
medical group in the United States--and one of the most
distinguished.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vickie E. Turner, Esq.
Meryl C. Maneker, Esq.
Kirsten F. Gallacher, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Rein, Esq.
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-mail: vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
kgallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
erein@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rodriguez Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSE RODRIGUEZ, for himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC. and ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants,
Civil Case No. 2:15-cv-01224-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Richard A.
Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order
Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditionally
Certifying Proposed Settlement Class, Approving Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and granting Incentive Award.
On March 25, 2019, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Settlement, resulting in certification of the following
provisional Settlement Class: All natural persons residing in the
United States whose consumer report as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section
1681a(d) was obtained by AllianceOne, from Experian, for the
purpose of collecting a debt arising out of any vehicle parking
violation in the United States. The class excludes all persons who
have filed for bankruptcy.
No objections have been made, timely or otherwise, pursuant to the
Class Notice sent to the Settlement Class members, nor did any
objectors appear at the time of the hearing.
The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order
of the Court dated March 25, 2019, for approval of the settlement
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release. Having
considered all papers filed and proceedings had therein, Judge
Jones finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate,
and that the Settlement satisfies the standards and applicable
requirements for final approval of the class action settlement
under California law.
Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all respects,
and the Parties are directed to implement and consummate the
Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions, Judge
Jones rules. Upon entry of the Order, compensation to the
participating Settlement Class Members will be effected pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement. In addition to any recovery that the
Plaintiffs may receive under the Settlement, and in recognition of
the Plaintiffs' efforts and risks taken on behalf of the Settlement
Class, Judge Jones approved the payment of a Service Award to the
Plaintiff, in the amount of $5,000.
Judge Jones approved the payment (i) of attorneys' fees and costs
to the Class Counsel in the sum of $733,333; and (ii) in an amount
commensurate with KCC's actual costs, and not to exceed $75,000 to
KCC for performance of its settlement claims administration
services.
Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Parties
will file a declaration setting forth that claims have been paid
and that the terms of the Settlement have been completed. The
Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the action in its
entirety, and is intended to be immediately appealable.
A full-text copy of Judge Jones' Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BJ7Dlp from Leagle.com.
Jesse Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC, pro hac vice, Gabriel
Posner -- gabe@posnerlawpllc.com -- POSNER LAW LLC, pro hac vice,
Todd Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES
OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C., pro hac vice & Ryan Matthew Pesicka --
ryan@condordlawseattle.com -- CONCORD LAW, P.C.
AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc, Defendant, represented by
David William Cramer, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, & Christopher
E. Hawk, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, 121 SW Morrison St., Suite
1575, Portland, OR 97204.
FAT BRANDS: Response to 2nd Amended Suit in "Vignola" Due Jan. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Adam Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-07469 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an
order dated January 2, 2020, approving a stipulation among the
parties extending the time for the Defendants to respond to the
second amended complaint.
The deadline for defendants Fat Brands, Inc., Andrew A. Wiederhorn,
James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, and TriPoint Global Equities, LLC
to answer the Second Amended Complaint is extended to January 14,
2020.
There's a pending Motion to Certify Class filed by Lead Plaintiffs
Charles Jordan, David Kovacs. The Motion is set for hearing March
9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Gutierrez.
In a December 17, 2019 ruling, the Court granted, in part, and
denied, in part, the Defendants' motion to dismiss. According to
Judge Gutierrez, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted
without leave to amend as to the first cause of action as to
Defendants FCCG and Roe; and as to the first cause of action to the
extent it relies on the alleged omission of FCCG's first delisting
from NASDAQ. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the
first cause of action as to the remaining Defendants and as to the
alleged omission of the 2009 bankruptcies and delisting; and it is
denied as to the second cause of action.
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on August 24, 2018,
plaintiff Adam Vignola, a putative investor in the Company, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew
Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc., Tripoint
Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of
directors, entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands Inc., in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No. 2:18-cv-07469.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants are
responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the
Company’s common stock.
The plaintiff alleged that he intended to certify the complaint as
a class action and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to
be determined at trial.
On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs (collectively,
"Lead Plaintiffs") moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and the
Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion on November 16, 2018. On
January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Defendants, thereby removing Marc L.
Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as
defendants, asserting allegations and claims for relief
substantively identical to those asserted in the FAC filed in
Rojany.
On March 18, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC or,
in the alterative, to stay the action in favor of Rojany. On June
14, 2019, the Court denied the motion to stay and granted the
motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.
On August 5, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint reducing the scope of the allegations previously
asserted. On September 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the SAC. The hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the
SAC was set for December 16, 2019. All discovery and other
proceedings in this action remain stayed by operation of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The Company and other defendants dispute the allegations of the
lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
FAT Brands said, "The Company is obligated to indemnify its
officers and directors to the extent permitted by applicable law in
connection with the above actions, and has insurance for such
individuals, to the extent of the limits of the applicable
insurance policies and subject to potential reservations of rights.
The Company is also obligated to indemnify Tripoint Global
Equities, LLC under certain conditions relating to the Rojany and
Vignola matters. These proceedings are in their early stages and
the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these
matters. There can be no assurance that the defendants will be
successful in defending against these actions."
FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.
FAT BRANDS: Status Conference in Rojany Suit Set for Jan. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the status
conference in the class action suit entitled, Rojany v. FAT Brands
Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC708539, has been scheduled on January 9, 2020.
On June 7, 2018, plaintiff Eric Rojany, a putative investor in the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company,
Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc.,
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of
directors, entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands Inc., in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC708539.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants were
responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the Company's
common stock.
Plaintiff alleged that he intended to certify the complaint as a
class action and sought compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.
On August 2, 2018, plaintiff Daniel Alden, another putative
investor in the Company, filed a second putative class action
lawsuit against the same defendants, entitled Alden v. FAT Brands,
Inc., in the same court, Case No. BC716017.
On September 17, 2018, Rojany and Alden were consolidated under the
Rojany case caption and number.
On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric Rojany, Daniel Alden,
Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron Marin filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FAC") against the Company, Andrew
Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Fog Cutter
Capital Group Inc. and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively,
"Defendants"), thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants. The FAC asserted the
same claims as asserted in the original complaint.
On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a demurrer to the FAC. On
January 25, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' demurrer to the
FAC, with leave to amend in part. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint ("SAC") against
Defendants.
On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a demurrer to the SAC. On July
31, 2019, the Court overruled in part and sustained in part
Defendants' demurrer to the SAC, with leave to amend. On September
20, 2019, Plaintiffs served an initial set of requests for
production of documents.
At a status conference held on October 28, 2019, Plaintiffs
indicated that they would not file a further amended complaint, and
instead would rely upon the SAC as the operative complaint. The
deadline for Defendants to file an answer to the SAC is November
12, 2019.
The Court scheduled a status conference for January 9, 2020, at
which time the parties shall present a proposed pretrial schedule
for the case.
The Company and other defendants dispute the allegations of the
lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.
FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties are
awaiting final court approval of the settlement of the Plaintiff
Damages Class in the case, In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720.
In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable
and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and
has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with
Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October
2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement
agreement.
On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order
approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed appeals
from that approval.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a hearing on
those appeals and on June 30, 2016, reversed the district court's
approval of the class settlement, remanding the case to the
district court for further proceedings.
On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second
Circuit's decision. Pursuant to the terms of the overturned
settlement agreement, the Bancorp had previously paid $46 million
into a class settlement escrow account.
Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion from the class
settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the overturned
settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds paid into the
class settlement escrow account had been already returned to the
control of the defendants. The remaining approximately 75% of the
settlement funds paid by the Bancorp are currently maintained in
the escrow account.
More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the
class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and
certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations.
These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the
individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements noted above.
On June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action
reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed
plaintiffs' class seeking monetary damages (the "Plaintiff Damages
Class"). On September 17, 2018, those parties signed a settlement
agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") superseding the
original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012.
The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a
release from participating class members for liability for claims
that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement
Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided
for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24
billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow
plus an additional $900 million in new funds.
However, the Settlement Agreement also provided that if between 15%
and 25% of class members (by payment volume) opted out of the
class, up to $700 million of the additional settlement funds would
be returned to the defendants. It has now been determined that more
than 25% of the class members have elected to opt out of the
Amended Settlement Agreement, and, therefore, $700 million of the
additional $900 million will be returned to the defendants. In
either event, the Bancorp's allocated share of the putative
settlement is within existing reserves.
The Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement on
January 24, 2019 and scheduled a hearing on final approval of the
settlement for November 7, 2019.
Fifth Third said, "The putative settlement does not resolve the
claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking
injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of
the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the
future decide to pursue, private lawsuits."
Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due February 28
--------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion for
class certification in the class action suit entitled, In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation, is currently due
February 28, 2020.
On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts.
The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers
who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances
within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the
Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original
lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation
(Case No. 1:12-CV-00851).
On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On
March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA.
On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the
immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract
claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and
stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018,
plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract
claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for
further proceedings. The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the
alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million.
Under the Court's scheduling order, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is currently due February 28, 2020. No trial
date has been set
Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
FIRST BANCORP: Torres Class Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------
First BanCorp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court
overseeing the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al., has entered judgment dismissing the Complaint
and Third-Party Complaint as requested by the parties.
FirstBank was named a defendant in a punitive class action
complaint entitled, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al., filed in February 2017 at the Court of First
Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
The Complaint sought damages and preliminary injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class against FirstBank, Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico and other financial institutions with insurance agency
subsidiaries in Puerto Rico.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants had been unjustly enriched by
failing to reimburse them for "good experience" commissions
allegedly paid by Antilles Insurance Company and Puerto Rico Home
Insurance Company.
In March 2017, FirstBank filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for
Declaratory Judgment and Third-Party Complaint against Antilles
Insurance Company and the Insurance Commissioner's Office.
All of the other Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint
and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief.
Antilles Insurance Company filed a motion against the Third-Party
Complaint filed by FirstBank, which FirstBank opposed. The
Insurance Commissioner's Office filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment.
In July 2017, the Court issued a Judgment granting the Motions to
Dismiss filed by Defendants and dismissing the Complaint with
prejudice, except the Third-Party Complaint filed by FirstBank,
which was dismissed without prejudice.
In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico
Court of Appeals and FirstBank and the other Defendants filed their
Oppositions to Plaintiffs' appeal.
In March 2018, the Court of Appeals entered a Judgment revoking the
lower court's Judgment. One Defendant filed for reconsideration,
which was denied, and all the other Defendants filed their
respective Petitions of Certiorari before the Puerto Rico Supreme
Court, which also denied review.
Defendants subsequently filed for reconsideration.
All Motions for Reconsideration were denied, and the case was
remanded to the Court of First Instance for the continuation of
proceedings. A Class certification hearing scheduled for May 2,
2019 was changed to a status hearing. Parties discussed their
respective positions, specifically that prior to any other hearing,
it was imperative that the Court resolved FirstBank’s motion
seeking Declaratory Judgment. Memorandums of law regarding the
validity of the Antilles Insurance policy endorsement were filed on
June 3, 2019 in compliance with a court order.
A preliminary injunction hearing was held in September 2019.
Following the hearing, Plaintiffs sought to voluntarily dismiss the
Complaint against FirstBank and FirstBank Insurance Agency with
prejudice and FirstBank agreed to voluntarily dismiss its
Third-Party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company and the
Insurance Commissioner's Office without prejudice.
Joint motions for the voluntary dismissal of said complaints were
filed.
On September 12, 2019, the Court entered judgment dismissing the
Complaint and Third-Party Complaint as requested by the parties.
First BanCorp. is a diversified financial holding company
headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico offering a full range of
financial products to consumers and commercial customers through
various subsidiaries. First BanCorp. is the holding company of
FirstBank Puerto Rico ("FirstBank" or the "Bank") and FirstBank
Insurance Agency. The company is based in Santurce, Puerto Rico.
FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class action suit
initiated by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point
neighborhood.
In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in
San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco
Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc., an independent contractor
hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic
radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard, Lennar and the
Company as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and
have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from
undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco
Shipyard.
Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San
Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San
Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and
the Company's CEO, among others, as defendants. The plaintiffs
allege that environmental contamination issues at The San Francisco
Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them before they purchased
their homes. They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants
(not including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San
Francisco Shipyard under California law. They seek damages as well
as certain declaratory relief.
All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and
indemnification rights against third parties, including related
parties, with respect to these claims.
Five Point said, "Given the preliminary nature of these claims, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters."
Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. The company operates
through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and
Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding
Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in
May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' appeal
from the district court decision granting the defendants' joint
motion to dismiss the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit remains
pending.
In August 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported class
action complaint against the Company in the District Court, Clark
County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals and
entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax
on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges for
Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through the
date the alleged conduct ceases.
The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs.
All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment,
Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of
merit. The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss in
February 2019. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court decision
in April 2019 to the Supreme Court of Nevada. Briefs in this matter
were filed with the Federal Appeals Court in October 2019.
Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
GOPRO INC: Settlement of 2016 Shareholder Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement in a 2016
Shareholder Class Action has been finally approved.
On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
(the 2016 Shareholder Class Action) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and Nicholas D. Woodman, its Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee,
its CFO, and Anthony Bates, its former President (Defendants).
The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to
allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about
the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs.
On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers (GoPro
Defendants) on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
On July 26, 2017, the court denied that motion and directed the
plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all defendants the
plaintiff intended to sue.
On August 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which Defendants answered on September 8, 2017. On September 11,
2018, the parties participated in a mediation session and following
the mediation, reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action.
On April 26, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the lead
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The
settlement, which received final approval of the Court on September
20, 2019, was funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers.
GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and
wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its
name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California.
HARRIS, TX: Stauber Seeks Overtime Pay for Nonexempt Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY STAUBER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-04719 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 4, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation from the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.
According to the complaint, Harris County violated the FLSA by
employing Stauber and other similarly situated nonexempt employees
for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate
them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or
were employed.
Mr. Stauber is a longtime employee of Harris County. He currently
works as a deputy sheriff in the Harris County Sheriff's Department
and has attained the rank of lieutenant.
Harris County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas
located in the Houston Division of the Southern District of
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. 'Bob' Thomas, Esq.
ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW
5100 Westheimer Road, Suite 105
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 659-0005
Facsimile: (713) 750-0070
- and -
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt HesseCurt Hesse
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
HOUSTON BAPTIST: Compelled to Reply to Discovery Sought in Hicks
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEANNA HICKS, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON BAPTIST UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-629-FL (E.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge
James E. Gates of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, Western Division, granted Hicks' motion to
compel (i) the Defendant to respond to discovery sought in her
first set of interrogatories and first requests for production of
documents, and (ii) the Defendant's marketing agent, nonparty
Educate Online, Inc., to respond to a deposition subpoena duces
tecum seeking similar discovery.
The Plaintiff, a former student at Austin Community College
("ACC"), commenced the lawsuit as a result of two unsolicited
telephone calls she alleges she received on her cell phone on Sept.
13 and 14, 2017. According to the Plaintiff, the autodialed calls
were made on behalf of the Defendant and urged her to contact the
Defendant to learn about its nursing program, notwithstanding the
fact that her cell phone number was registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff alleges that while enrolled at
ACC, she signed a document informing her that ACC would not share
or sell her personal information. She contends that the Defendant
placed these unsolicited calls to her without her express written
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").
The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of herself and the
putative class members similarly situated. Specifically, the
Plaintiff proposes to assert her claims on behalf of the following
two classes:
1. Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United
States from four years prior to the filing of the action through
the present who (1) the Defendant (or a third person acting on
behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person's cellular
telephone, (3) using an autodialer, and (4) for whom Defendant
claims it obtained prior express written consent in the same manner
as the Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express
written consent to call the Plaintiff.
2. Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United
States who (1) the Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
Defendant) called more than one time on his/her cellular telephone;
(2) within any 12-month period (3) where the cellular telephone
number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
least 30 days; (4) for the purpose of selling the Defendant's
products and services; and (5) for whom the Defendant claims it
obtained prior express consent in the same manner as the Defendant
claims it obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserts two claims: the first for violation of the
TCPA on behalf of herself and the autodialed No Consent Class, and
the second under the same statute on behalf of herself and the Do
Not Call Registry Class.
The Defendant denies the material allegations in the Plaintiff's
complaint. Among other defenses, it asserts that the Plaintiff and
the other purported class members consented to receipt of its
telephone calls.
On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff served on the Defendant her first
set of interrogatories and first requests for production. On May
25, 2018, the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff's
interrogatories and production requests. On April 27, 2018, the
Plaintiff served a subpoena on Educate Online, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), seeking deposition testimony and
documents from it. On May 16, 2018, Educate Online served
objections and responses to the Plaintiff's subpoena.
The instant motion seeks production from the Defendant and Educate
Online of information and documents relating to persons at schools
other than ACC who received any cellular telephone calls from or on
behalf of defendant, including information and documents relating
to the calls to such persons. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that
she adequately attempted to resolve the matters at issue on her
motion without court intervention through pre-filing conferral with
defendant and Educate Online about their objections to producing
the information and documents sought in her motion.
The Plaintiff identifies the discovery requests subject to her
motion as: interrogatories nos. 1-4 and 7-13; requests for
production nos. 2-7, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-28, 30-32, 36-37, and
43-44; document requests nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7-20 in the subpoena;
and deposition topics nos. 2, and 5-12 in the subpoena.
Magistrate Judge Gates has considered the burden that the
additional discovery sought by the Plaintiff would place on the
Defendant and Educate Online, the volume of discovery that they
have already provided, and the proportionality of the additional
discovery sought to the needs of the case. He concludes that these
considerations do not place the additional information and
documents the Plaintiff seeks by her motion outside the permissible
scope of discovery in the case.
For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Gates allowed the
Plaintiff's motion to compel.
The Defendant may not withhold from production any information
requested in interrogatories nos. 1-4 and 7-13 or any documents
requested in requests for production nos. 2-7, 17-19, 21-23, 25,
27-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 43-44 on the grounds that such information
or documents relate to call recipients at schools other than ACC.
For purposes of the Order, information or documents will be deemed
to relate to such a call recipient if they relate to any such call
to the call recipient.
In the event that the directive in the preceding paragraph 2 makes
producible information or documents that the Defendant has not yet
produced in response to interrogatories nos. 1-4 and 7-13 or
requests for production nos. 2-7, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-28, 30-32,
36-37, and 43-44, the Defendant was to serve on the Plaintiff by
late November 2019: (a) a supplemental response to the
interrogatories involved that sets out such additional information;
and (b) a supplemental response to the requests for production
involved that identifies by Bates number or otherwise the
additional documents being produced and is accompanied by copies of
all such documents.
Topics nos. 2 and 5-12 in the subpoena to Educate Online will be
deemed to include any information otherwise within the scope of
such topics that relates to call recipients at schools other than
ACC.
Educate Online may not withhold from production any documents
requested in document requests nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7-20 in the
subpoena on the grounds that such documents relate to call
recipients at schools other than ACC.
In the event that the directive in the preceding paragraph 5 makes
producible documents that Educate Online has not yet produced in
response to document requests nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7-20 in the
subpoena to it, Educate Online will serve on plaintiff by late
November 2019 copies of all such additional documents.
Because the circumstances presented would make an award of expenses
unjust, the parties and Educate Online will bear their own expenses
incurred on the Plaintiff's motion.
A full-text copy of Judge Gates' Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/apxxhx from Leagle.com.
Deanna Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi R. Kaufman, Kaufman P.A.,
Stefan Coleman, Stefan Colema & Ted Lewis Johnson, Ted Lewis
Johnson, Attorney at Law.
Houston Baptist University, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Elizabeth Zwickert Timmermans --
eztimmermans@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, Robert A.
Muckenfuss -- rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP &
Susan E. Groh -- sgroh@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal
from a ruling in the class action suit entitled, Timm, v. Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., is ongoing.
On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.
The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses.
On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it
(1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against
all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the
2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2)
declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the
Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of
two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve
the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary,
which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments
invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in
effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within
60 days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors to
the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company’s Board
of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the
Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment) and, (4)
declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of
dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles
Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not order the
Company to make any payment at this time).
The Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome of
appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal. On
October 2, 2019, the appellate court held oral argument for all
appeals in the matter.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independentresidential
mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term
Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.
INFINITE PERSONAL: Faces De Varona Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO DE VARONA And all others similarly situated v. INFINITE
PERSONAL POSSIBILITIES, INC. and DEBORAH SAFKO, Case No.
0:19-cv-62966-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants have underpaid their employees in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Behavioral Analyst
Associate from 2004 until present.
The Defendants paid the Plaintiff according to the same pay
practice that it applied to its other employees who, like the
Plaintiff, were not paid the applicable minimum wage for all hours
as Behavioral Analyst Associates, the lawsuit says.
The Defendants offers health care services in Aventura,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra Sierra-De Varona, Esq.
DE VARONA LAW
350 Camino Gardens Blvd., Suite 105
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 600-9070
Facsimile: (561) 600-9077
E-mail: asd@devaronalaw.com
J2 GLOBAL: Davis Neurology Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Davis
Neurology, P.A.
On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the TCPA. The case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On
March 20, 2017, the District Court granted a motion for judgment on
the pleadings filed by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all
claims against the J2 Global affiliates. On July 23, 2018, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded
to district court with instructions to return the case to state
court.
On January 29, 2019, after further appeals were exhausted, the case
was remanded to the Arkansas state court. On April 1, 2019, the
state court granted a motion for class certification filed by the
plaintiff in 2016.
Because the prior removal to federal court had deprived the state
court of jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed
an opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted
the motion. The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order.
On July 15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
The plaintiff has moved to remand and the J2 Global affiliates have
opposed the motion.
j2 Global said, "J2 Global does not believe, based on current
knowledge, that the foregoing legal proceedings or claims, after
giving effect to existing accrued liabilities, are likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, depending
on the amount and timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all
of these matters could have a material effect on J2 Global's
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows in a particular period."
The Company has not accrued for any material loss contingencies
relating to these legal proceedings because materially unfavorable
outcomes are not considered probable by management. It is the
Company’s policy to expense as incurred legal fees related to
various litigations.
j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court Dismisses Ponzo Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York dismissed without prejudice the case, PATRICK
PONZO, on behalf of the Inmates of Jefferson County, Plaintiff, v.
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-CV-1013 (LEK/TWD)
(N.D. N.Y.).
Pro se Plaintiff Ponzo commenced the putative class action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Jefferson County, New York, has
violated the rights of County inmates by refusing to transport them
to court for attendance at judicial proceedings. The Plaintiff
also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP").
Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Danck granted the Plaintiff's IFP
Application, reviewed the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's Complaint
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e), and recommended that the Complaint
be dismissed with leave to replead for failure to state a claim.
The Magistrate Judge advised the Plaintiff that under 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1), he had 14 days within which to file written
objections to the Report-Recommendation, and that failure to object
to the Report-Recommendation within 14 days would preclude
appellate review. The Plaintiff did not file any objections to the
Report-Recommendation, instead filed an amended complaint before
the Court reviewed the Report-Recommendation.
Judge Kahn finds that because the Plaintiff filed his Amended
Complaint before the original Complaint had been served, he could
file the Amended Complaint "as a matter of course," and there was
no need to seek leave of Court. Judge Kahn therefore deems the
Amended Complaint to be the operative pleading and refers the
Amended Complaint to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review.
Accordingly, Judge Kahn approved and adopted the
Report-Recommendation in its entirety. The Judge dismissed without
prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint is deemed the operative pleading and is referred to
Magistrate Judge Dancks for review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e).
A full-text copy of Judge Kahn's Nov. 12, 2019 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/nBLJ5b from Leagle.com.
Patrick Ponzo, Inmates of Jefferson County, Plaintiff, pro se.
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit over Race Bias Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 27,
2019, that the company continues to defend a discrimination class
action suit entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.
On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by a former financial advisor.
An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees
on the basis of race.
On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.
Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif. Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 27,
2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P.,
et al.
On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in
a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial
Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial advisors
in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento
County.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial
advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain
categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates
the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law.
The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys'
fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief.
Defendants will respond to the complaint in due course and intend
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JR ENGINEERING: Conditional Certification of Roberts Suit Ruled On
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Pamela Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned JAMES ROBERTS, JR., Plaintiff, v. J.R. ENGINEERING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-CV-00110. (N.D. Ohio).
JRE is an Ohio corporation that manufactures automobile parts. It
has two manufacturing facilities -- one in Norton, Ohio that
operates under the name J.R. Wheel, and one in Barberton, Ohio that
operates under the name J.R. Engineering.
On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated against JR Engineering
(JRE), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). Plaintiff
alleges that JRE violated the FLSA by failing to appropriately
compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for
overtime hours worked before and after the end of their shifts.
On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification. Therein, Plaintiff seeks to certify a class
consisting of "[a]ll former and current manufacturing employees of
J.R. Engineering in Barberton, Ohio and Norton, Ohio between
January 15, 2016 and the present." Opt-In Plaintiffs Tristan
Adkins and Jacob Pastorius also submitted Declarations in support
of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
JRE has filed a Motion to Strike Certain Portions of the
Declarations of James Roberts, Jr., Jacob Pastorius, and Tristan
Adkins.
On review, Judge Barker finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the
modest factual showing necessary to demonstrate that they are
similarly situated to other JRE manufacturing employees at JRE's
J.R. Wheel and J.R. Engineering facilities.
Likewise, despite the minimal factual detail or specificity in
Plaintiffs' Declarations, Plaintiffs have sufficiently identified a
common theory of JRE's alleged statutory violation: JRE's alleged
failure to pay its manufacturing employees for performing work
before and after their scheduled start and stop times, resulting in
employees not being paid overtime compensation, the Court finds.
Accordingly, Judge Barker makes these rulings:
1. JRE's Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
JRE's Motion to Strike is GRANTED with respect to the
statements in Paragraphs 11 and 14 of Roberts's Declaration
and Paragraph 7 of Pastorius's and Adkins's Declarations
that aver Plaintiffs are similarly situated to other JRE
manufacturing employees, but is DENIED in all other respects.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is also
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows. The Court
conditionally certifies the following collective action
class:
All former and current non-exempt manufacturing employees of
J.R. Engineering, Inc. in Barberton, Ohio and Norton, Ohio
between October 31, 2016 and the present who performed
unpaid pre-shift and/or post-shift work.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y27wu6tb from Leagle.com
James Roberts, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy, Lori M.
Griffin & Anthony J. Lazzaro of the Lazzaro Law Firm..
J.R. Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Monica L. Frantz
- mfrantz@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress, Morris L. Hawk -
mhawk@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress & Nancy A. Noall -
nnoall@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress.
K & E RESOURCES: Simmons Seeks Overtime Pay for General Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL SIMMONS and THELMA COSBY, on Behalf of Themselves and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. K & E
RESOURCES, LLC and JANE OLA EASTERLY ACHORD, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-14040 (E.D. La., Dec. 4, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for general laborers.
The Plaintiffs are employed as general laborers for the Defendants
and are paid on an hourly rate for all hours worked, even when more
than 40 hours of work is performed in a particular week, the
lawsuit says.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing commercial
and residential construction.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Zachary R. Smith, Esq.
CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE,
STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
Metairie, LA 70001
Telephone: (504) 833-5600
Facsimile: (504) 613-4528
KENCO LOGISTIC: Cal. App. Reversed Dismissal of Young Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, issued an
Opinion affirming a trial court judgment sustaining Defendants'
Demurer in the case captioned HUGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. KENCO LOGISTIC SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. A153023 (Cal. App.).
Plaintiff Huguette Nicole Young worked as a commercial truck driver
for Kenco Logistic Services, LLC. Following two workplace
disciplinary actions against her, Young, appearing in propia
persona, filed suit against Kenco and SmartDrive Systems, Inc., a
contractor Kenco used to surveil its drivers. Young alleged the
disciplinary actions defamed her and that video recording her while
working constituted an invasion of privacy by intrusion.
On June 30, 2017, Young filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC),
the operative pleading in the action, asserting four causes of
action: defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion), invasion of
privacy (misappropriation of likeness), and invasion of privacy
(false light). Thereafter, Young moved to certify the case as a
class action, which the trial court denied.
In September 2017, Kenco demurred to the FAC. Young did not submit
any written opposition. Subsequently, the trial court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend, and then later entered judgment of
dismissal.
Young appealed.
Upon review of the record, the Appellate Court reversed the
judgment of dismissal. The order sustaining the demurrer is
reversed solely as to the second cause of action for invasion of
privacy by intrusion, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court's opinion. The
Appellate Court affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer in all
other respects.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyqqxtob from Leagle.com
LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid in Miller Energy Litig. Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the plaintiffs' motion for class action certification in
the litigation involving Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities
offerings remains pending.
In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in state court in Tennessee against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.
("Miller"), officers, directors, auditors and nine firms that
underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, which
offerings raised approximately $151,000.
Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated
valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable
for violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief. In December 2015 the defendants removed
the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee; in November 2016, the cases were consolidated.
In August 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the
underwriters' motion to dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to remand the
case to state court are pending.
Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.
LADENBURG THALMANN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that a final hearing seeking court approval of the settlement
agreement in the consolidated class action suit against American
Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP") is scheduled for January
2020.
In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"),
certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm,
and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000 common stock
offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note offerings. The
complaints have been consolidated.
Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the
May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July
2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on financial reporting of expenses,
improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and
false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including
statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief.
In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss
the complaint. In August 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
In September 2019 the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement that provides for resolution of the matter with no
contribution from Ladenburg or the other underwriter defendants.
In October 2019, the court entered an order granting preliminary
approval to the settlement.
A final hearing seeking court approval of the settlement agreement
is scheduled for January 2020.
In the event that the lawsuit proceeds, Ladenburg intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Dismisses Derivative Stockholders Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge V.C. McCormick of the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the
consolidate case IN RE LENDINGCLUB CORP. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12984-VCM, (Del. Ch.).
LendingClub Corporation operates an online platform that
facilitates loans issued by third parties. The company then
purchases the loans and sells them to investors based on the
investors' preferred loan characteristics. LendingClub sold to an
institutional investor $22 million in near-prime loans that did not
meet the investor's instructions concerning loan characteristics.
When whistleblowers alerted the company's board of directors, the
board conducted an internal investigation with the assistance of
independent outside counsel and a forensic auditor.
The internal investigation surfaced other problems. Two members of
the board of directors, one of whom was the company's CEO and board
Chairman, failed to disclose their personal investments in Cirrix
Capital L.P. before the company invested $10 million in Cirrix.
Also, certain valuation adjustments made by LendingClub's
wholly-owned subsidiary, LC Advisors, LLC, were not consistent with
generally accepted accounting principles such that LC Advisors
exceeded the investment parameters of one of the funds it managed.
With that, the LendingClub board promptly self-reported the
misconduct to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and took
steps to remediate the matter.
Nevertheless, two groups of LendingClub stockholders commenced
litigation in reaction to the public disclosures. The first
stockholder group filed a securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
company, the former CEO and CFO, and members of LendingClub's board
of directors. As to the director defendants, the complaint alleged
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which are
essentially strict liability claims and do not require a showing of
scienter. The complaint alleged that LendingClub's December 2014
registration statement contained misstatements in view of
LendingClub's later-disclosed weaknesses in its internal controls.
The second group of stockholders commenced the current derivative
action claiming that LendingClub's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties. The complaint does not challenge the propriety of
the remedial actions taken by the board. Rather, the complaint
asserts claims under Caremark, In re Caremark Int'l Inc. Deriv.
Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), contending that the
LendingClub board made no good faith effort to put in place a
system of controls or, in the alternative, that it consciously
failed to monitor company operations and thus disabled itself from
being informed of problems requiring its attention.
The Complaint contains two causes of action: The first cause of
action alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with (a) the Board's failure to implement internal
controls at LendingClub, which resulted in allegedly false and
misleading statements in the Company's public disclosures (b) the
Cirrix investment and (c) the non-conforming loans. The second
cause of action alleges (d) that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to monitor LC Advisors' compliance with
federal law and oversee LC Advisors' risk management.
Defendants in the action have moved to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to plead demand
futility.
The Derivative Claims
* Oversight of LendingClub
Plaintiffs' first claim is that the Director Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties because they failed to take steps to
maintain adequate internal controls necessary to prevent against
the issuance of false and misleading statements at LendingClub.
These false and misleading statements allegedly surfaced in a
variety of the Company's proxy statements, including in its
December 2014 registration statement, where the Company stated that
it would not assume credit risk or use its own capital to invest in
loans facilitated by the LendingClub marketplace and that it
maintained an effective information security program.
Because Plaintiffs' first claim alleges a complete failure to
maintain adequate internal controls, it falls within Caremark's
first category. To demonstrate interestedness, Plaintiffs argue
that the majority of the Demand Board members faced a substantial
likelihood of liability from their first claim.
This argument fails, the Court says. The Complaint is empty of the
kind of fact pleading that is critical to a Caremark claim, such as
contentions that the company lacked an audit committee or that the
company had an audit committee that met only sporadically and
devoted patently inadequate time to its work. The factual
allegations in the Complaint indicate that LendingClub's Audit
Committee both (1) existed and (2) met monthly. The Complaint
offers no facts concerning LendingClub's internal controls or lack
thereof that would persuade a finding that the Board faced a
substantial likelihood of liability for utterly failing to
implement them.
And the Complaint offers no factual support for a finding that a
majority of the Demand Board acted in bad faith, the Court
continues.
* Cirrix Investment
Plaintiffs' second claim is that Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to prevent harm to the Company stemming
from the Cirrix investment. This claim falls within Caremark's
second category, since it alleges a conscious failure to monitor
such that the personal ownership interests of Laplanche and Mack in
Cirrix went undetected at the time the board approved the Cirrix
investment.
To recover under the second prong of Caremark, Plaintiffs must
demonstrate that the directors, having implemented adequate
internal controls, consciously failed to monitor or oversee their
operations thus disabling themselves from being informed of risks
or problems requiring their attention.
In other words, Plaintiffs must allege that the directors were
conscious of the fact that they were not doing their jobs, and that
they ignored red flags indicating misconduct. To demonstrate that
this claim compromises the Demand Board for demand futility
purposes, Plaintiffs argue that the Risk Committee members --
Morris, Ciporin, Summers, and Williams -- faced a substantial
likelihood of liability for consciously failing to perform their
duties in connection with the Cirrix Investment.
Plaintiffs argue that conscious disregard can be inferred because
the Risk Committee approved the Company's Cirrix investment at
Laplanche's recommendation "without so much as questioning the
propriety of the action or taking any steps to learn of Laplanche's
and Mack's interests in Cirrix.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs do not plead facts sufficient to
support a finding that a majority of the Demand Board consciously
ignored red flags relating to the Cirrix investment such that it
faced a substantial likelihood of liability in the action.
* Sale of Non-Conforming Loans
Plaintiffs' third claim is that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to prevent the sale of non-conforming loans,
either because they failed to implement board-level oversight
mechanisms or consciously ignored red flags.
In briefing, Plaintiffs do not make arguments specific to this
claim in order to demonstrate that the Demand Board was compromised
for demand futility purposes, the Court finds. The Complaint does
not adequately allege that any of the Demand Board members acted in
bad faith such that they faced a substantial likelihood of
liability in connection with respect to the sale of non-conforming
loans, the Court further finds.
* LC Advisors
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed to oversee and monitor
compliance of LC Advisors with applicable federal, state, and local
laws, and likewise failed to oversee LC Advisor's risk management.
Plaintiffs concede that this claim calls for the application of
Caremark.
To demonstrate that this claim compromises the Demand Board for
demand futility purposes, Plaintiffs allege that Demand Board
failed to implement any mechanism by which it could oversee LC
Advisors, despite the Company's acknowledgment in one of its 2015
SEC filings that any violations of law by LC Advisors would affect
LendingClub's ability to meet the demands of its online
marketplace.
According to the Complaint, the Investment Policy Committee did not
function as intended due to the conduct of two its three members,
Laplanche and Dolan. When the Board learned of the relevant facts,
the Board abolished the Investment Policy Committee, which
ultimately led to the establishment of a new governing board
comprised of a majority of independent members to supervise LC
Advisors' exercise of its fiduciary duties. Since then, LC
Advisors' new governing board regularly makes reports to
LendingClub's board of directors.
And while it may be true that actions taken after the fact do not
absolve past transgressions, these allegations do not demonstrate
that the Board failed to implement an oversight mechanism with
regard to LC Advisors, the Court says. Rather, it demonstrates that
the Board implemented an oversight system and, when the Board first
learned that it was not working, created a new one, the Court
continues
The Securities Class Action Claims
The Securities Class Action would not have compromised the Demand
Board's ability to impartially consider a demand concerning the
subject matter of this action, namely because the claims against
them in this action are exceptionally weak, the Court opines.
To hold the Director Defendants liable in the action, Plaintiffs
must prove that the directors acted in bad faith, that is, there
must be some factual support speaking to the Director Defendants'
state of mind at the time the challenged conduct occurred. By
contrast, the Section 11 claims sustained against the Director
Defendants in the Securities Class Action did not require a showing
of scienter. The only claims that required a showing of scienter in
the Securities Class Action were the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claims asserted exclusively against Dolan and Laplanche. Liability
under Section 11 would not, in and of itself, have gotten to the
heart of whether the directors acted in bad faith concerning
wrongdoing at issue in both actions.
There is thus no basis for the Court to conclude that the Demand
Board members would have viewed the Securities Class Action as
posing a substantial likelihood of liability concerning the
Caremark claims in this case, Judge McCormick says.
Judge McCormick opines that in sum, Plaintiffs have failed to
allege that a majority of the Demand Board members were unable to
impartially consider pre-suit demand with regard to any of
Plaintiffs' claims. Because the Complaint fails to meet the
requirements of Rule 23.1, the Court's decision does not address
Defendants' arguments under Rule 12(b)(6).
For reasons stated, Judge McCormick dismissed Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Supplemented Verified Stockholder Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's October 31, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4tuj7q2
from Leagle.com
Seth D. Rigrodsky – sdr@rl-legal.com ; Brian D. Long -
bdl@rl-legal.com ; Gina M. Serra – gms@rl-lega.com of RIGRODSKY &
LONG, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Robert I. Harwood –
rharwood@hfesq.com ; Matthew M. Houston of HARWOOD FEFFER LLP, 488
Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022; Brett D. Stecker & James M. Ficaro
of THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C., 22 Cassatt Ave. Berwyn, PA 19312,
Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Chaile Steinberg, William A. Blazek,
and William Rhangos.
Raymond J. DiCamillo - dicamillo@rlf.com & Eliezer Y. Feinstein -
feinstein@rlf.com of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington
Delaware; Adam S. Paris & Natalie Muscatello of SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
LLP; Counsel for Defendants John C. Morris, Daniel T. Ciporin,
Jeffrey Crowe, Mary Meeker, Scott Sanborn, Lawrence H. Summers, and
Simon Williams.
Raymond J. DiCamillo & Eliezer Y. Feinstein of RICHARDS, LAYTON &
FINGER P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Jonathan D. Polkes –
jonathan.polkes@weils.com of WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York,
New York; Counsel for Defendant John J. Mack.
Myron T. Steele - msteele@potteranderson.com ; T. Brad Davey -
bdavey@potteranderson.com ; Callan R. Jackson
-cjackson@potteranderson.com of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Robert J. Liubicic - rliubicic@milbank.com of
MILBANK LLP, Los Angeles, California; Scott A. Edelman-
sedelman@milbank.com ; Adam Fee - afee@milbank.com ; Andrew
Lichtenberg - alichtenberg@milbank.com of MILBANK LLP, New York,
New York; Counsel for Defendant Renaud Laplanche.
Jody C. Barillare - jody.barillare@morganlewis.com of MORGAN, LEWIS
& BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Charlene S. Shimada -
charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com ; Susan D. Resley; Lucy Wang of
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, San Francisco, California; Marc J.
Sonnenfeld of MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Counsel for Defendant Carrie Dolan.
LOUISIANA HEALTH: Denial of Bid to Intervene in OGHA Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, A
PUBLIC TRUST, D/B/A OPELOUSAS GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM, v. LOUISIANA
HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
LOUISIANA, Case No. 19-265 CW 19-179 (La. App.), Judge Sylvia R.
Cooks of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Third Circuit
affirmed the lower court's order denying the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association's (i) Motion for Leave to File a Petition for
Intervention, and (ii) Motion to Temporarily Stay Application for
Supervisory Writs and Consolidate Application with Direct Appeal.
The consolidated appeal and writ application arise from a class
action filed on Aug. 24, 2016 by the Plaintiff, Opelousas General
Hospital Authority, a Public Trust, doing business as Opelousas
General Health System ("OGHA"), against the Defendant ("BCBS-LA").
OGHA alleged that BCBS-LA conspired with the Association and 35
other Blue Cross plans across the United States to allocate
markets, monopolize, and engage in other anticompetitive conduct.
OGHA alleged this conduct was in violation of the Louisiana
Anti-Trust Statute.
In the relevant period surrounding the suit filed by OGHA, several
anti-trust class actions were brought against various Blue Cross
Blue Shield entities under both federal and state law. Many of the
actions were consolidated in a federal Multi-District Litigation
("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama. OGHA maintains its lawsuit is different from the ones in
the MDL, and that the suit is tailored only against BCBS-LA and
asserts only monetary claims under Louisiana law.
In accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 593, OGHA moved for class
certification on Nov. 3, 2016. On Dec. 22, 2016, BCBS-LA filed an
Exception of Prematurity and Alternative Motion to Compel
Arbitration, contending the claims asserted in the OGHA class
action were subject to an arbitration agreement. The trial court
denied the exception and alternative motion on March 8, 2017.
On June 21, 2017, BCBS-LA filed an opposition to OGHA's motion for
class certification. On June 27, 2017, two days prior to the class
certification hearing, the Association filed a Motion for Leave to
File a Petition for Intervention. That same day, the Association
and BCBS-LA jointly filed a Notice of Removal, asserting the
intervention (which had not yet been granted or denied) created
minimal diversity for purposes of jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act.
Also, on June 27, 2017, OGHA filed an Emergency Motion to Remand,
contending until the district court ruled on the Petition for
Intervention, there was no federal jurisdiction. Emergency remand
was requested to allow the district court to rule on the Petition
for Intervention. Further, on the same day, the Association and
BCBS-LA sought a transfer of the case to the MDL pending in the
Northern District of Alabama. The Judicial Panel Multi-district
Litigation automatically issued a Conditional Transfer Order.
The Counsel for OGHA advised the district court they were seeking
an emergency remand to allow the district court to consider the
Petition for Intervention. Judge R. David Proctor, who presided
over the MDL, on April 9, 2018, rendered judgment remanding the
case back to Louisiana district court under the
voluntary-involuntary rule.
OGHA again attempted to reset its long-sought class certification
hearing. The Association again opposed this, contending the
district court must first rule on its Motion for Leave to File a
Petition for Intervention. A hearing on that motion occurred on
Feb. 7, 2019, after which the district court denied the
intervention on the basis it would result in further needless
delay. The district court certified the order as final and
appealable.
The Association and BCBS-LA filed yet another motion to stay on
February 13, 2019. At the hearing on the stay motion, the
Association acknowledged it would leverage any intervention as a
means to seek removal to federal court. The district court denied
the stay and reset the class certification hearing for May 30,
2019.
The Association sought supervisory writs from the judgment of the
district court denying the Petition for Intervention. The
Association also filed an appeal from the district court's
judgment. It acknowledged it filed the application for writs as a
precautionary measure in the event the direct appealability of the
district court's Reasons for Judgment and Final Judgment was
challenged or denied on any grounds.
On March 8, 2019, the Association filed a Motion to Temporarily
Stay Application for Supervisory Writs and Consolidate Application
with Direct Appeal. On March 14, 2019, the Court granted the writ
application for the limited purpose of ordering the consolidation
of the writ application with the appeal to be lodged in the Court.
On appeal, the Association asserted the following assignments of
error:
1. The district court erred in concluding that, if permitted
to intervene, the Association would not be able to show the Federal
Courts that it has the minimal diversity to trigger CAFA
jurisdiction and thus any removal would result in remand and retard
the progress of the action. It misread the Eleventh Circuit's
decision in the case, which clearly stated than an order granting
the Association's motion to intervene will trigger CAFA's minimal
diversity jurisdiction, making the case properly removable.
2. The district court erred in denying intervention based upon
a belief that the case would not be removable, in contravention of
controlling Louisiana Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court
precedent holding that such a determination is the purview of the
federal courts alone, and that a court may not thwart removal
because the court anticipated removal will cause delay.
3. The district court erred in finding that intervention by
the Association would retard the progress of the action when the
case remains in a preliminary, pretrial phase and the clear weight
of authority holds that intervention before judgment does not
retard the case.
4. The district court erred in denying the Association's
petition to intervene on the basis that even if the Association is
not allowed to intervene in the action, it still has a right to
appeal because a third-party appeal is not a substitute for
intervention.
The question before the Appeals Court is whether the district
court's denial of the Associations' Petition for Intervention under
the circumstances of the case is an abuse of discretion.
Judge Cooks holds that it is imperative to note the undisputed
facts that the case has already undergone a two-year delay because
the Association and BCBS-LA improperly removed the case to federal
court two days before the district court was scheduled to hear the
class certification hearing and before it could rule on the motion
to intervene. After two years of delay, the Association again
asked the district court to consider its Petition for Intervention
and admitted it would immediately seek to remove the case to
federal court if it were allowed to intervene. Judge Cooks finds
no abuse of the trial court's broad discretion in finding that a
grant of intervention would result in further, needless delay in
violation of La.Code Civ.P. art. 1033. Thus, the trial court did
not err in denying the Association's Petition for Intervention.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cooks affirmed the judgment of the
lower court. All costs of the appeal are assessed to the
Appellant, the Association.
A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/fc1NqX from Leagle.com.
Thomas A. Filo, Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, L.L.C., 723 Broad
Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 582-8364, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et al.
Patrick C. Morrow -- PatM@mmrblaw.com ; James P. Ryan --
JamesR@mmrblaw.com of Morrow, Morrow, Ryan, Bassett & Haik, 324
West Landry Street, Opelousas, LA 70570, (337) 948-4483, COUNSEL
FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et
al.
Stephen B. Murray, Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Arthur M. Murray, Murray
Law Firm, Poydras Center, Suite 2150, 650 Poydras Street, New
Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et al.
James A. Brown, Liskow & Lewis, 701 Poydras St., Suite 5000, New
Orleans, LA 70139, (504) 581-7979, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. -- jcgiglio@liskow.com -- Michael Ishee,
Liskow & Lewis, 822 Harding Street, P.O. Box 52008, Lafayette, LA
70503, (337) 232-7424, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association.
Daniel E. Laytin -- daniel.laytin@kirkland.com -- Zachary Holmstead
-- zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300
North LaSalle, Chicago, IL 60654, (312) 862-2000, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Patai Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA PATAI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE D/B/A MARQUEZ
INDUSTRIES, LLC AND TALIS INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-00281
(W.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
employing the Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to
compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a
rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which
they are or were employed. Further, the Defendants violated the
FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees.
The Defendants are a maintenance and services company. They
employed Ms. Patai as a senior lead designer from July 2019 to
November 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Center
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
MATRIX MEDICAL: Mizrahi Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MIZRAHI, individually and of behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK, Case No. 3:19-cv-20960 (D.N.J.,
Dec. 3, 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.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made one or more
unauthorized phone call to the Plaintiff's cellular phones using an
automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and pre-recorded messages
for the purpose of soliciting business from the Plaintiff.
Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant utilizes a sophisticated
telephone dialing system to call individuals en masse promoting its
services. However, Defendant fails to get the requisite prior
consent prior to calling.
The Defendant also fails to have procedure in place to ensure that
they were not calling and/or messaging consumers on the National Do
Not Call Registry, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant operates a home-based medical services and works with
60 different health plans nationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: $300K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Moodie FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has entered judgment on attorneys fees in
the case captioned SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 14-3471 FMO (ASx)
(C.D. Cal.).
Pursuant to the Court's Order on the Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement; Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs & Incentive Payment,
filed contemporaneously with the filing of the Judgment, Judge
Olguin adjudged that
(i) Plaintiff Moodie be paid a service payment of $5,000,
(ii) the class counsel be paid $300,000 in attorney's fees and
costs; and
(iii) the Claims Administrator, JND, be paid for its fees and
expenses, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion
from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties. Except
as to any class members who have validly and timely requested
exclusion, the action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties
to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth in the
Judgment and in the prior orders of the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/NHwWxU from Leagle.com.
Ronald Kroenig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Christopher P.
Ridout -- christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP &
Kevin Mahoney -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group
APC.
Shonntey Moodie, Plaintiff, represented by Alina Birute Marija
Mazeika -- amazeika@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group, Hannah
Fernandez -- hannah.fernandez@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
Kevin Mahoney, Mahoney Law Group APC & Christopher P. Ridout,
Zimmerman Reed LLP.
Nancy Lewen, Movant, pro se.
Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant,
represented by John S. Battenfeld, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Joseph Duffy
-- joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP &
Taylor C. Day -- tday@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.
MDL 2543: Balhoff Named Mediator in New GM Ignition Switch Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed Daniel J. Balhoff of the law firm
Perry, Balhoff, Mengis & Burns, LLC, to act as a Special Master for
the purpose of serving as a mediator to facilitate settlement
discussions between the Plaintiffs and New GM in IN RE: GENERAL
MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION, This document relates to
Murphy v. GM LLC, Case Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 16-CV-0678 (S.D.
N.Y.).
Plaintiffs Park and Kari Murphy and the Estate of Chelsea Murphy
are represented by counsel Tracy Cinocca in the litigation. It is
the Court's determination that the Plaintiffs and New GM would
benefit from a mediation with Daniel J. Balhoff serving as a
neutral third party to mediate the claim and aid the parties in
potentially reaching a mutually acceptable settlement.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C), Judge
Furman will appoint Mr. Balhoff to act as a Special Master for the
purpose of serving as a mediator to facilitate settlement
discussions between the Plaintiffs and New GM. The Court is
familiar with Mr. Balhoff's credentials, and it is the judgment of
the Judge that he is well qualified for the appointment. Mr.
Balhoff has already served as court-appointed Special Master for
many settlements in the MDL.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, the Judge appointed
Mr. Balhoff as the Special Master to serve as mediator to
facilitate the potential resolution of the Plaintiffs' lawsuit in a
manner acceptable to both parties. The parties will be equally
responsible for the payment of Mr. Balhoff's fee for mediating this
claim and any related expenses. To minimize travel expenses for
plaintiffs and their counsel, the mediation will be conducted in
Tulsa, Oklahoma at a location agreeable to both parties and Mr.
Balhoff.
Mr. Balhoff will proceed with all reasonable diligence. He will
use his experience and judgment to structure the mediation in
manner to best facilitate potential resolution of the claim. Mr.
Balhoff may have confidential ex parte communications with the
Plaintiffs and New GM in relation to his role as Special Master,
and to the extent either party engaged in ex parte communications
with Mr. Balhoff, such ex parte communications will not be deemed
to have waived any attorney-client or other privileges.
To execute the responsibilities and duties of his office, Mr.
Balhoff will be vested by the Court with all necessary powers to
act as an effective mediator as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 53. Unless expressly authorized in writing by both the
counsel for the Plaintiffs and the counsel for New GM, Mr. Balhoff
will not disclose any confidential information or documents
obtained through or created in his role. Likewise, all
communications by the counsel for the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs,
and the counsel for New GM with one another and with the mediator
will be kept strictly confidential by the parties, and will be
subject to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
While the Court does not currently anticipate requesting a formal
report and recommendation from Mr. Balhoff, if it does request the
same, Mr. Balhoff will reduce any formal order, finding, report, or
recommendation to writing to be filed under seal, as determined by
the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ZIxDSn from Leagle.com.
Teleso Satele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Carlota Onofre, individually and on behalf of all
others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski
-- elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Major A.
Langer, Perona, Langer, Beck & Lallande, Mark P. Robinson, Jr.,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, Scot D. Wilson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Jason
Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Sean R. Matt -- sean@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Devora Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Charles Girard, Girard
Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, David K. Stein, Girard Gibbs Llp, pro hac
vice, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo & Scott M.
Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice.
Frederick Whittington, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs,
Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo.
Katie Michelle McConnell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Sylvia Benton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Robinson
Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Mark P. Robinson, Jr.,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, Robert Bruce Carey,
Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro,LLP, Scot D. Wilson, Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Allen
Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt, Hagens
Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P.
Martin Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Michaels , Mlg
Automotive Law, Aplc, pro hac vice, Justin Benjamin Farar , Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Jeanine Harvey , MLG
Automotive Law APLC, pro hac vice, Laurence David King , Kaplan
Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP, Linda M. Fong , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro
hac vice & Robert N. Kaplan , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.
General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Baker Bloomer
-- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Anne M. Talcott -- atalcott@schwabe.com -- Schwabe
Williamson
& Wyatt, PC, Arthur Jay Steinberg -- asteinberg@kslaw.com -- King
&
Spalding LLP, Arthur Henry Thorn, Thorn Gershon Tymann and
Bonanni,
LLP, Benjamin Houston Joyce -- bjoyce@mcnair.net -- Hood Law Firm,
Carey E. Olson, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Christopher
William Keegan -- chris.keegan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Cristin Fitzgerald Bordelon , Leake &
Andersson,
LLP, Darin T. Beffa -- darin@beffalaw.com -- Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, Darrell Lee Barger, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, David
L.
Balser -- dbalser@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice,
Edward L. Ripley, King & Spalding LLP, Eric Michael English, King
And Spalding LLP, Francis J. Grey , Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey,
James B. Hood, Hood Law Firm, James Johnson, Ricci Tyrrell Johnson
& Grey, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Cox, Hartline Dacus et al,
Jeffrey Alan Daxe, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Jeffrey
Sinek -- jeff.sinek@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Jennifer L. Bullard, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Jerry L.
Saporito, Leake & Andersson, LLP, John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis,
Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Kara MacCartie Stewart,
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Kyle Harold Dreyer, Hartline, Dacus, Barger,
Dreyer & Kern, LLP, Kyle Harold Dreyer, Hartline, Dacus, Barger,
Dreyer & Kern, LLP, pro hac vice, Laurie K. Miller, Jackson Kelly
PLLC, pro hac vice, Lawrence J. Murphy, Honigman, Miller, Lawrence
A. Slovensky -- lslovensky@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro
hac vice, Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
&
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Linsey W. West, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
Lisa
Verna Lecointe, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Mark W. Skanes, The Rose Law
Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Matthew H. McNamara , Thorn Grshon
Tymann
and Bonanni, LLP, Richard Cartier Godfrey --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert
Burkart Ellis -- robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP,
Robert H. Hood, Jr. , Hood Law Firm, Robert Donald Ingram, Moore
Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Rodney E. Loomer, Turner, Reid,
Duncan, Loomer & Patton, P.C., Roshan N. Rajkumar, Bowman and
Brooke LLP, Ryan N. Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop,
P.C., pro hac vice, Ryan M. Ingram, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele,
LLP, Scott Ian Davidson, King & Spalding LLP, Sherry A. Rozell,
Turner, Reid, Duncan, Loomer & Patton, Stanley Weiner, Jones Day,
Stephen B. Devereaux -- sdevereaux@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding,
LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas P. Branigan, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Thomas
J. Hurney, Jr., Jackson Kelly PLLC, pro hac vice, Thomas M. Klein,
Bowman & Brooke LLP, Whitney H. Kimerling, Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., William L. Kirk, Jr., Rumberger Kirk &
Caldwell, Allan Pixton -- allan.pixton@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Anne Raven, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Anne Mcclain Sidrys
--
asidrys@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Barry
E. Fields -- barry.fields@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Beth Larsen -- beth.larsen@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Brian Douglas Sieve -- brian.sieve@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis
LLP, Brian T. Smith , Dykema, Bridget Kathleen O'Connor --
bridget.oconnor@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Casey James
McGushin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L. Fitzpatrick ,
Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Christina
E. Sharkey , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Daniel Michael Monico, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Deron L. Wade, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, Dommond
E. Lonnie, Dykema Gossett LLP, Eric Christopher Tew, Dykema, Eric
Yeager -- eric.yeager@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Frank
Chadwick Morriss, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., Geoffrey Alan David
-- geoffrey.david@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Giovanna
Tarantino Bingham, Hartline Dacus Barger, pro hac vice, Greg
Ryckman -- greg.ryckman@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Gregory Polins -- greg.polins@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP,
Haley Lorraine Darling -- haley.darling@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Hariklia Karis --
hariklia.karis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jeffrey Scott
Bramson -- jeffrey.bramson@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Jeremy D. Roux -- jeremy.roux@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP,
Jonathan C. Bunge, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan
Kadima Tshiamala -- jonathan.tshiamala@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Kimberly Olvey Branscome --
kimberly.branscome@kirkland.com --, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren Frances Biksacky -- lauren.biksacky@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Maria Pellegrino Rivera , Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Marianna Caruso Chapleau , Kirkland & Ellis
LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark J. Nomellini , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Michael P.
Cooney , Dykema, Michael K. Steinberger , Bush Seyferth & Paige
PLLC, Michael R. Williams , Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Nicholas
Fanklin Wasdin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Patrick Gerard Seyferth,
Bush
Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Paul David Collier , Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice, Peter Bartoszek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Pryce Godfrey
Tucker , HARTLINE DACUS BARGER, pro hac vice, R. Chris Heck ,
Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Renee Deborah Smith , Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert C. Brock, Covington & Burling, LLP, pro
hac vice, Samuel James Ikard, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac ice,
Sierra Elizabeth, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Terri A.
Abruzzo -- terri.abruzzo@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Thomas William Osier, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Vanessa Anne Barsanti,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Vinu Joseph, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Wendy L.
Bloom -- wendy.bloom@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Wendy
D. May -- wmay@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Daus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro
hac vice.
Don McCue Chevrolet, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Navigato, Bochte, Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP, Theodore L. Kuzniar,
Bochte, Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP & William F. Bochte, Bochte,
Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP.
General Motors Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew Baker
Bloomer, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Houston
Joyce, Hood Law Firm, James B. Hood, Hood Law Firm, James Johnson,
Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sinek,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Cartier Godfrey,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert Burkart Ellis, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Robert H. Hood, Jr., Hood Law Firm, Allan Pixton , Kirkland &
Ellis
LLP, Barry E. Fields, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L.
Fitzpatrick, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth &
Paige PLLC, Michael K. Steinberger, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC,
Michael R. Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Patrick Gerard
Seyferth, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Renee Deborah Smith,
Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Wendy L. Bloom, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
General Motors Holding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Sinek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Verna Lecointe,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Allan Pixton , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Barry
E.
Fields , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L. Fitzpatrick, Kirkland
&
Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael K.
Steinberger, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael R. Williams, Bush
Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Patrick Gerard Seyferth, Bush Seyferth &
Paige PLLC, Renee Deborah Smith, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice
& Wendy L. Bloom, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
Ramey Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., a West Virginia corporation,
Defendant, represented by Johnnie E. Brown, PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN
BROWN & POE.
Stoneridge, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Willis Ward,
Stites & Harbison, PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Clarke Keller, Stites &
Harbison PLLC & Doris Rios Duffy, Edward Garfinkel, Law Offices.
MERCHANT EXCHANGE: Cal. App. Flips Demurrer to O'Grady Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In LAUREN O'GRADY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MERCHANT EXCHANGE
PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A148513,
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District,
Division Two, issued an Opinion reversing a trial court judgment
granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case.
Merchant Exchange is in the business of providing a banquet
facility at which food and beverages are served. It adds a
mandatory, and substantial, "service charge" to the contract for
every banquet. Merchant Exchange distributes some of the service
charge to managerial employees who do not serve food and beverages
at the banquet. An employee, Lauren O'Grady, filed a putative class
action to force Merchant Exchange to treat the service charge as a
gratuity and distribute all of it to employees who do serve food
and beverages at the banquet. Merchant Exchange took the position
that two Court of Appeal opinions hold, as a matter of law under
stare decisis, that a service charge can never be a gratuity. The
trial court agreed, and sustained Merchant Exchange's general
demurrer without leave to amend.
The issue presented to the Appeals Court is whether the service
charge may be a gratuity that Labor Code section 3511 requires to
go only to the non-managerial employees involved with the actual
serving of the food and beverages.
Under Section 351 of the Labor Code, gratuity is statutorily
defined to include any tip, gratuity, money, or part thereof that
has been paid or given to or left for an employee by a patron of a
business over and above the actual amount due the business for
services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or
served to the patron. No employer or agent shall collect, take, or
receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or
left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages
due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to
credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and
as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every
gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee
or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for.
However, the terms tip, gratuity and service charge are commonly
used as if they are interchangeable synonyms.
Plaintiff is attempting to establish that it is custom "in the
hospitality industry" to treat sums designated as "service charges"
as gratuities for employees. In other words, custom or usage can
serve as a common law augmentation of sections 350 and 351. If
true, defendant's practice would clearly appear to be at odds with
the purpose of section 351, which is "to ensure that employees, not
employers, receive the full benefit of gratuities that patrons
intend for the sole benefit of those employees who serve them.'"
(Searle, supra, 102 Cal.App. 4th 1327, 1332.) That purpose would
not be served by allowing employers to take money intended for
employees simply by saying the customer has paid a "service
charge."
Accordingly, the Appeal Court ruled that the Order Granting
Defendant Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc.'s Demurrer to
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint filed April 5, 2016, is amended
by adding the following paragraph: Plaintiff's complaint on file
herein is dismissed. As so modified, the order/judgment is
reversed. Plaintiff shall recover her costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy3v6xyb from Leagle.com
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, Michael Freedman - mfreedman@llrlaw.com ;
Matthew D. Carlson -mcarlson@llrlaw.com ; Shannon Liss-Riordan -
sliss@llrlaw.com ; Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Joseph A. Schwachter -
jschwachter@littler.com ; Galen M. Lichtenstein -
glichtenstein@littler.com - Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.
METROSTAFF INC: Williams Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
LaTonia Williams and Dequrvia Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MetroStaff
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13840 (Ill. Cir., Dec. 2,
2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and
storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's employees in Illinois
have been required to scan their fingerprints at a Metrostaff, Inc.
office before they are placed to work at the job sites of third
party companies. The Defendant does the collection of biometric
data in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's
fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that fingerprint to identify
that same person in the future.
Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the
collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale
or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest
bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations
addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric
information by private entities, such as the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs bring the action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.
Metro Staff is a light industrial and professional staffing service
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James X. Bormes, Esq.
Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312 201 0575
- and -
Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312 726 3400
MICHAEL PAGE: Jordan Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DANIEL JORDAN, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated v.
MICHAEL PAGE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; C&D
ZODIAC, INC. dba ZODIAC AEROSPACE, a Delaware Corporation and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:18-cv-01328-JVS-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of the parties'
Joint Stipulation of Settlement of the California Class Action
claims.
Mr. Jordan also seeks entry of an order conditionally certifying
the collective and class action claims for settlement purposes
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court will commence a hearing on January 27, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Quintilone, II, Esq.
Andrew H. Haas, Esq.
Alejandro Quinones, Esq.
QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Telephone: (949) 458-9675
Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
ahh@quintlaw.com
axq@quintlaw.com
- and -
Roger Carter, Esq.
Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq.
THE CARTER LAW FIRM
23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 245-7500
E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net
bianca@carterlawfirm.net
- and -
Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 629-2533
Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com
Defendant Michael Page International is represented by:
Boris Sorsher, Esq.
Bret Martin, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-2424
Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
E-mail: bsorsher@fisherphillips.com
bmartin@fisherphillips.com
MILACRON HOLDINGS: Faces Hillenbrand Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Milacron Holdings Corporation is facing litigation challenging its
merger deal with Hillenbrand, Inc., Milacron said in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
November 8, 2019.
On July 12, 2019, Milacron Holdings Corp., Hillenbrand, Inc., and
Bengal Delaware Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hillenbrand, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that
provides for the acquisition of Milacron by Hillenbrand (the
"merger").
Subject to approval of Milacron stockholders and the satisfaction
or (to the extent permitted by law) waiver of certain other closing
conditions, Hillenbrand will acquire Milacron through the merger of
Merger Sub with and into Milacron, with Milacron surviving the
merger and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand.
Following the announcement of the merger, four putative class
action complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of
Milacron. On October 1, 2019, the first putative class action
complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
captioned Sabatini v. Milacron Holdings Corp., et al, Civil Action
No. 1:19-cv-01846, against Milacron, the members of the Milacron
board of directors, Hillenbrand and Merger Sub.
On October 14, 2019, the second putative class action complaint was
filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Krieger v.
Milacron Holdings Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01943,
against Milacron and the members of the Milacron board of
directors.
On October 16, 2019, the third putative class action complaint was
filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned
Akerman v. Milacron Holdings Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-05841, against Milacron, the members of the Milacron board
of directors, Hillenbrand and Merger Sub.
On October 29, 2019, the fourth putative class action complaint was
filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Bushansky v. Milacron Holdings Corp., et. al, Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-10022, against Milacron and the members of the board of
directors.
The complaints in these four cases allege that, among other things,
the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by omitting
or misrepresenting certain allegedly material information in the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus.
The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the merger, rescissory damages or
rescission in the event the merger is consummated and plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees.
Milacron, Hillenbrand and the other defendants believe the
allegations and claims asserted in the Merger Litigation are
without merit and supplemental disclosures are not required or
necessary under applicable laws.
However, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger Litigation
delaying or otherwise adversely affecting the transactions and to
minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in defending
the Merger Litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, Milacron and Hillenbrand are hereby voluntarily
supplementing the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.
Milacron, Hillenbrand and the other named defendants deny that they
have violated any laws or breached any duties to Milacron's
stockholders or Hillenbrand's shareholders, as applicable.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/34UOgEE.
Milacron Holdings Corporation operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and distributes
injection molding, extrusion, blow molding, hot runner solutions,
and process control systems. Milacron Holdings serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Cincinnati, Ohio.
MORTON GOLF: Faces Cavanaugh Employment Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morton Golf, LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as Jamie Cavanaugh, On behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Morton Golf, LLC and Does
1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00270176-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Dec. 2, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of employment related laws.
Morton Golf, LLC was founded in 1932. The company's line of
business includes operating golf courses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5850 Oberlin Dr, Ste 230A
San Diego, CA 92121-4711
Telephone: (619) 892-7095
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com
MSC MERCHANT: Faces Abante Rooter Suit Over Auto-Dialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., a California corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MSC MERCHANT SERVICE CENTER, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-07965 (N.D. Cal.,
Dec. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing auto-dialed calls to cellphone
owners, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant, in an attempt to secure
new customers (and sales) and leads for the merchant processing
companies, engaged in an aggressive telemarketing campaign--often
stepping outside the law in the process, the Plaintiff asserts.
Specifically, the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellphone
numbers, the lawsuit says.
Abante is a plumbing company headquartered in Emeryville, Alameda
County, California.
MSC is a sales marketer that recruits new customers for merchant
processing companies via telemarketing (and potentially through
other means).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Weinstein, Esq.
P.O. Box 27414
Oakland, CA 94602
Telephone: (510) 336-2181
Facsimile: (510) 336-2181
E-mail: steveattorney@comcast.net
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Employee Fund's Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330, remains pending.
In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora. That case is captioned Bucks County Employees
Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330.
The parties have agreed to stay the case until the next case
management conference, scheduled for December 3, 2019.
The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.
NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.
NANTHEALTH INC: Settlement Reached in Deora Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a settlement in
principle has been reached in the class action suit entitled, Deora
v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825.
In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its current or former executive officers and directors.
These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case
captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825, ("Deora").
In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's IPO registration statement and in subsequent public
statements.
In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles
in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business
with the University of Utah, donations to the university by
non-profit entities associated with the Company's founder Dr.
Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer.
The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired
NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1,
2016 through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On July 30, 2019, the court certified the case as a class action.
On October 23, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had
reached a settlement in principle to resolve the action on a
classwide basis in the amount of $16,500, which is included in
accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet at September 30, 2019.
The settlement is subject to several conditions, including the
execution of a stipulation of settlement that is satisfactory to
all parties, and preliminary and final approval from the court,
among other things.
NantHealth said, "If the settlement is finalized and approved by
the court, the majority of the settlement amount will be funded by
the Company's insurance carriers, and a portion will be funded by
the Company."
NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.
NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs' appeal from a
court's order granting the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings in a California class action lawsuit over the Company's
initial public offering is still pending.
On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and
April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo, against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and
5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters
of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering.
The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading
statements, and/or omitted material information that was required
to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects.
Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and
costs.
The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were
subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The
Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed
pending the appeal.
The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a
matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted
on October 23, 2017.
The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without
leave to re-file, and granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the
Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint
on November 22, 2017.
The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the
amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs
opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018.
On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018 and their brief on or
about March 29, 2019. Natera filed its brief in response on June
27, 2019.
The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously,
but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that
an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition and results of operations.
The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable
to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if
any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.
NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California has been denied.
On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff
received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Among other relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.
On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was
denied.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter but cannot
provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse
resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition and results of operations.
The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable
to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if
any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.
Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera,
Inc.
in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.
NCAA: Rucker Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
REGGIE RUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
and BETHUNE-COOKMAN UNIVERSITY, INC., a Florida non-profit
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04740-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind.,
Dec. 2, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of
the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of BCU student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are
riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing,
are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that
would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing
for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the
danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the
Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, the Plaintiff avers.
As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, the lawsuit
says. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in
order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA
accountable.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: 713.554.9099
Facsimile: 713.554.9098
E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312 589 6370
Facsimile: 312 589 6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Stallworth Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04738-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Wittenberg
student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are
riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing,
are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that
would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing
for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the
danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the
Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, the Plaintiff avers.
As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, the lawsuit
says. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in
order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA
accountable.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: 713.554.9099
Facsimile: 713.554.9098
E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312 589 6370
Facsimile: 312 589 6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCL CORP: Appeal on Dismissal in Phillips Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from the
ruling in the class action suit initiated by Marta and Jerry
Phillips and others against the company is pending.
On September 21, 2018, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by
Marta and Jerry Phillips and others against NCL Corporation Ltd. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida relating to the marketing and sales of the company's
Booksafe Travel Protection Plan.
The plaintiffs purport to represent an alleged class of passengers
who purchased Booksafe Travel Protection Plans.
The complaint alleged that the Company concealed that it received
proceeds on the sale of the travel insurance portion of the plan.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, fees and
costs.
The Company moved to invoke the arbitration clause of the ticket
contract to move the case out of Federal Court.
On May 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and compelled the
plaintiffs to submit their claims to arbitration on an individual
basis, dismissing the claims before the Court with prejudice.
The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.
NCL said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claim and
that any liability which may arise as a result of this action will
not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements."
NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise line operator. The
company was founded in 2013 and is based in Miami, Florida. NCL
Corporation Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise Line
Holdings Ltd.
NCS PEARSON: Schacke Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Douglas Schacke, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NCS
Pearson, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12356, was removed from
the Cook County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 2, 2019.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07901 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Steven C. Seeger.
The suit demands $9.9 million in damages.
NCS Pearson develops and markets enterprise application software.
The company provides software applications and technologies for
education, testing, assessment, and complex data management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Megan Shannon, Esq.
Ryan F Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
mshannon@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael R. Dockterman, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
227 West Monroe St., Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1243
E-mail: mdockterman@steptoe.com
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in
California.
On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class
action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB).
On July 24, 2018, the court appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund
GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the Company
and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its
business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the
Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering.
The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.
The underwriters from the company's initial public offering have
also been named as defendants in this case and we have certain
obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify them for
their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this
litigation.
On September 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section
11 claims entirely, without leave to amend, and accordingly
dismissed the underwriters and certain directors from the case. The
Court also dismissed certain statements from the Section 10 claims.
The Company believes the remaining claims in the complaint are
without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them.
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device
company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices
to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers
the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese
patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.
ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: GTx Merger-Related Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that lawsuits
related to the merger between GTx, Inc. and Oncternal Therapeutics,
Inc., have been voluntarily dismissed.
On March 6, 2019, the Company, then operating as GTx, Inc. ("GTx"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), with privately-held Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Private Oncternal") and Grizzly Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub").
Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Private
Oncternal, with Private Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). On June 7, 2019, the
Merger was completed. GTx changed its name to Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc., and Private Oncternal, which remains as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, changed its name to
Oncternal Oncology, Inc.
Between April 10 and May 1, 2019, three putative class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware: Wheby v. GTx, Inc. et al.,
Miller v. GTx, Inc. et al., Tabb v. GTx, Inc. et al., and Living
Seas LLC v. GTx, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Delaware
Actions").
On April 11 and 23, 2019, two putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
Kopanic v. GTx, Inc. et al. and Cooper v. GTx, Inc. et al.
(collectively, the "New York Actions" and, together with the
Delaware Actions, the "Actions").
The Actions name as defendants the company and its former board of
directors, and, in the case of the Wheby and Miller actions,
Private Oncternal and Merger Sub.
The Actions allege that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with our filing of the Registration
Statement in connection with the Merger.
The Delaware Actions have now been voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice: the Wheby action on June 12, 2019; the Miller action on
July 15, 2019; the Living Seas action on June 26, 2019, and the
Tabb action on October 21, 2019. On September 16, 2019, plaintiffs
in the New York Actions filed an amended complaint, alleging
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act related
to the value GTx’s stockholders received in the Merger. The
complaint seeks damages and other unspecified relief.
The Company believes that the remaining lawsuits are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend these actions. The Company cannot
predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of
loss from any of these matters.
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, develops various product candidates for the treatment of
cancer. The Company is headquartered in San Diego, California.
PFIZER INC: Consolidated Class Suit v. Array BioPharma Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to Array
BioPharma's NRAS-mutant melanoma program.
In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that
Array BioPharma Inc., which the company acquired in July 2019 and
is the company's wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former
officers violated federal securities laws in connection with
certain disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the
NRAS-mutant melanoma program.
In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single
proceeding.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Dropped from Adalimumab Biosimilars Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2019, that the company is no longer a
defendant in the consolidated class action suit related to
Adalimumab Biosimilars.
Beginning in March 2019, purported class actions relating to Humira
and adalimumab biosimilars were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie Inc.
(AbbVie), certain affiliates of AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers. Pfizer is a named defendant in three of the actions.
The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and multi-state classes
consisting of persons and/or entities who are indirect purchasers
of Humira from January 1, 2017 until the allegedly unlawful
antitrust effects cease.
Against Pfizer, the plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer's and
AbbVie's 2018 licensing agreements, resolving all global
intellectual property matters for Pfizer's proposed adalimumab
biosimilar, delayed market entry of Pfizer's biosimilar product in
the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws, various state
antitrust or consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and treble damages for alleged
overcharges for Humira since 2017.
In August 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint that superseded the prior complaints and does not name
Pfizer as a defendant.
As a result, Pfizer is no longer a party to the case.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to EpiPen.
Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in
various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against
Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various
entities affiliated with Mylan, and Mylan Chief Executive Officer,
Heather Bresch.
The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide
classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of
the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct.
In August 2017, a similar lawsuit brought in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a purported class
of direct purchaser plaintiffs against Pfizer, King, Meridian and
Mylan was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege
that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent
litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen
in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust
or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that
Pfizer and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust
enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable
solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates regarding EpiPen.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen
since 2009.
In August 2017, the actions were consolidated for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen
(Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and
Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan
and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not
parties.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Harbison et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PAULA HARBISON, VALERIE
SANTOSUOSSO, and CHARLEY WHISENHUNT, On Behalf of THEMSELVES and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00955 (M.D. Tenn), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) consisting of:
"current/former collections employees of Defendant who have
worked for Defendant in the United States at any time since
October 28, 2016, who were paid on a salaried basis without
overtime compensation for hours over 40 in a workweek, and
who did not work in a supervisory or management capacity."
2. approving a stipulated notice and consent form;
3. directing Philips within 21 days following the Court's
granting class certification, to provide to Plaintiffs'
counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the name, last known
mailing address(es), last known e-mail address(es), dates of
employment, and location(s) of employment for the class;
4. directing Plaintiffs and their counsel within seven days of
receiving the Class List from Philips, to cause the Notice
and Consent Form to issue to potential opt-in plaintiffs via
U.S. Mail and e-mail, at their initial expense without
prejudice to seek reimbursement and to include a self-
addressed, postage-prepaid envelope with the initial
mailing; and
5. approving opt-in period of 60 days from the mailing of the
Court-authorized notice and consent form.
Philips North America LLC designs and manufactures products for
consumers, commercial professionals, and government professionals.
[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
Attorneys for the Defendant are:
Jonathan O. Harris, Esq.
Casey M. Parker, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
SunTrust Plaza
401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200
Nashville, TN 37219-2446
Telephone: 615-254-1900
Facsimile: 615-254-1908
PHILLIPS CHEVROLET: Snyder Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLIPS CHEVROLET, INC., an Illinois
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07914 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 3,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, to promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers,
including the Plaintiff, in the process.
Through the action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies
The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Camacho Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants in
the case, Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al., filed their appellate brief, along with a
motion to dismiss the appeal due to the plaintiffs' repeated
failure to comply with the Circuit Court's rules and orders.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), has been named a defendant
in a putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on
behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to
illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their
mortgage servicers.
Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the
Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable
Refinance Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan
modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor
Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").
For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that
all defendants (over 20, including all local banks) be held jointly
and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million.
BPPR filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most
co-defendants, and, in March 2018, the District Court dismissed the
complaint in its entirety. After being denied reconsideration by
the District Court, on August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The Court of Appeals has entered an order where it consolidated
three pending appeals related to the same subset of facts. The
plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 16, 2019, but on
September 24, 2019, the Court of Appeals ordered plaintiffs to
submit a new brief for the consolidated appeals that complied with
the applicable appellate procedural rules.
On October 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a revised brief, which
defendants believe yet again do not comply with applicable court
rules. On November 4, 2019, defendants filed their appellate brief,
along with a motion to dismiss the appeal due to the plaintiffs'
repeated failure to comply with the Circuit Court's rules and
orders.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Motion for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the Court's amended opinion and order
in the class action suit entitled, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco
Popular, et al., is pending.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), has also been named a
defendant in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef
Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who
filed the Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of residential
customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to
illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their
mortgage servicers.
As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other consumer-protection
laws and regulations.
Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their
complaint. After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the
Gonzalez Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately).
BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which
the Court granted in September 2018. On April 5, 2019, the Court
entered an Opinion and Order granting BPPR's and several other
defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Reconsideration on April 15, 2019, which Popular timely
opposed.
The Court held a hearing on May 14, 2019 to entertain the Motion
for Reconsideration and other pending miscellaneous motions and, on
September 30, 2019, issued an Amended Opinion and Order dismissing
plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, denying the
reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing
final judgment.
On October 17, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's Amended Opinion and Order, which
BPPR opposed on October 31, 2019.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Unit Still Faces Torres Class Action in Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico ("BPPR") continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
et al.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has separately been named a
defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez
Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before
the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part.
The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same
Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with
insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico.
Plaintiffs contend that in November 2015 Antilles Insurance Company
obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to
market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain
reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience,
but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its
existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in
violation of their duties as insurance brokers.
Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic
practices in failing to offer this product).
In July 2017, after co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive
relief, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In August
2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, in March 2018, the
Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's dismissal.
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied review.
At the request of the parties, the Court agreed to first decide
certain threshold questions of law but, on August 15, 2019, the
Popular Defendants and the Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion where
they informed the Court that Plaintiffs were simultaneously filing
voluntary dismissals with prejudice against all other parties.
On September 13, 2019, a status hearing was held where the
Plaintiffs and the Popular Defendants informed the Court that the
parties were in the process of stipulating a class for settlement
purposes. The Court set a status hearing for November 14, 2019,
where the parties currently expect to submit settlement terms for
the Court's approval.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
PRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by
Opt-Out members of the resolved class action suit entitled, In Re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation.
On January 25, 2017, the Company resolved the matter of In Re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, which consisted of a number of class actions and
single plaintiff claims consolidated by order of the Panel for
Multi-District Litigation.
While the settlement disposed of a large number of claims, several
hundred class members opted out ("Opt-Out Plaintiffs") of that
settlement.
Many of these Opt-Out Plaintiffs have been consolidated before the
MDL appointed court, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, and are pending a determination on
cross-motions for summary judgment.
The range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this time due to
the uncertainty surrounding liability.
PRA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, is a
global financial and business services company with operations in
the Americas and Europe. The Company's primary business is the
purchase, collection and management of portfolios of nonperforming
loans.
PROSHARES TRUST II: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action suit
entitled, In re ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation, is
pending.
The Sponsor and the Trust are named as defendants in the following
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on the following dates:
(i) on January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et
al.; (ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares
Trust II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno
v. ProShares Trust II, et al.
The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same,
namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act by
issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material
facts in the prospectus for ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures
ETF, and allegedly failing to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading.
Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are
also defendants in the actions, along with a number of others.
On April 29, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three suits into a single action captioned In re ProShares Trust II
Securities Litigation, and requiring that the lead plaintiff file
an amended consolidated complaint by June 21, 2019.
The Sponsor and the Trust filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 2,
2019. The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint
on September 6, 2019, which the Sponsor and the Trust moved to
dismiss on September 27, 2019.
Counsel for the Trust believes the second amended consolidated
complaint (as with the prior complaints) is without merit and that
the lawsuit will not adversely impact the operation of the Trust,
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, or any of its other
Funds.
The Trust and the Sponsor intend to vigorously defend against the
lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome of
the lawsuit. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded in
the Statement of Financial Condition and the amount of loss, if
any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. ProShares Short
VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may incur expenses in defending against
the lawsuit.
ProShares Trust II (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory trust
formed on October 9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate
series (each, a "Fund" and collectively, the "Funds").
PT CHICAGO: Fails to Provide RLTO Separate Summary, Olabisi Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JADESOLA OLABISI, Individually And As Representative of a Class of
Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff v. PT CHICAGO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13863 (Ill. Cir., Dec. 2, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant does not provide Chicago tenants at Presidential
Towers with the Separate Summary that is made for inspection and
copying by the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of
Buildings, when rental agreements are initially offered and
renewed, pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance, Section 5-12-170.
On September 25, 2018, the Defendant offered Plaintiff a 29-page
rental agreement for her unit. The Plaintiff was a tenant of
dwelling unit No. 04-1812 located at 625 W. Madison Street, in
Chicago, Illinois. The subject building is a part of large
residential complex in Chicago containing over 1000 residential
rental dwelling units commonly known as Presidential Towers ("PT
Chicago").
According to the complaint, a part of its responsibilities, the
Defendant and its agents prepare and offer rental agreements and
renewals to current and prospective tenants. The Defendant has
offered the same rental agreement to all of its Chicago tenants,
omitting the RLTO Separate Summary, within the last two years from
the filing of the action.
The Plaintiff, as the representative party seeks adjudication in
her favor and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the Class. The Plaintiff fully understands her rights and other
class members' rights under the Chicago RLTO Section 5-12-170, the
lawsuit says.
The Defendant was an owner, lessor, authorized management agent,
and landlord of Presidential Towers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Krolik, Esq.
AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A.
225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 924-0278
Facsimile: (312) 650-8241
E-mail: akrolik@securitydepositlaw.com
- and -
MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 775-1015
Facsimile: (312) 256-2055
E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com
QUIKTRAK INC: Wallace Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quiktrak, Inc. removed the case captioned as ALBERT WALLACE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUIKTRAK, INC., an unknown corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. RG18925519 (Filed Oct. 22, 2018),
from the Alameda County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on Dec. 2, 2019, pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-07895 to the proceeding.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other individuals as independent contractors, rather
than employees.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover meal period and rest break wages;
minimum and overtime wages; waiting time penalties under the
California Labor Code.
Quiktrak provides professional services. The company offers asset
verification, inspection, auditing, inventory, and risk management
services.[BN]
Defendant Quiktrak is represented by:
Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
Adam J. Fiss, Esq.
Linda Nguyen Bollinger, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113-2303
Telephone: 408 998 4150
Facsimile: 408 288 5686
E-mail: mmuraco@littler.com
afiss@littler.com
Ibollinger@littler.com
RANCHHODRAI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Arosemena Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMERI AROSEMENA, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. RANCHHODRAI INC., a California Corporation,
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2019-15963 (Cal. Super., Dec. 2, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, to pay minimum wages, to
provide meal periods, to provide rest periods, to provide accurate
itemized statements, and to reimburse expenses pursuant to the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee at one of the Company's four hotel locations. She asserts
that the unpaid wages remained unpaid after she and similarly
situated employees ceased working for the Defendants.
Ranchhodrai Inc. is in the hotels and motels business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: (916) 525 0716
Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
RBC CAPITAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in Luis Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from a ruling in the case, Luis et al v. RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, Case No. 0:16-cv-03873 (D. Minn.), remains
pending.
The appellate case is Gary Luis, et al., the Appellants v. RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, Appellee, Case No. 19-2706 (8th Cir., Aug 13,
2019). The suit alleges violation of Securities/Commodities
Exchange Act.
The Plaintiffs are taking an appeal from Judge Susan Richard
Nelson's July 11, 2019 decision granting Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification as moot.[BN]
Attorneys for the Appellants are:
Gregg Martin Fishbein, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
Telephone: 612-339-6900
- and -
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
GUSTAFSON & GLUEK
120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
Telephone: 612 333-8844
- and -
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
7301 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 207A
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Telephone: 561 569-7062
RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit related to the NDA for IV
meloxicam, is pending.
On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made
by the Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.
On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers and
directors as defendants. On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, which the
lead plaintiff opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the
Company filed its response and briefing was completed on the motion
to dismiss. On June 26, 2019, the judge heard oral arguments on the
motion to dismiss.
The judge asked the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief, which
was completed on August 30, 2019, and the Company submitted a reply
brief on September 27, 2019.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.
Recro Pharma said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this
time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether
the outcome will be material to the Company."
Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
RIPPY'S INVESTORS: Miller Seeks OT Wages for Tip-Credited Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MILLER, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. RIPPY'S INVESTORS, LLC, d/b/a Rippy's Bar & Grill, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01078 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has a common pay policy
and/or pay practice, which fails to pay certain tip-credited
employees at a rate of time and one-half of their regular rate of
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff, and those similarly situated individuals, were
servers/bartenders paid the tip-credited wage for services
performed for the Defendant, the lawsuit says.
Rippy's offers restaurant food and drink services to the general
public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Brian C. Winfrey, Esq.
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
810 Broadway, Ste. 105
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 928-9890
Facsimile: (615) 928-9917
E-mail: bwinfrey@forthepeople.com
kimd@forthepeople.com
ROBINSON NURSING: Arbitration Denial in Phillips Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion reversing in part
and affirming in part a trial court order denying Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ROBINSON NURSING
AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, D/B/A ROBINSON NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER; CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS, INC.;
NURSING CONSULTANTS, INC.; AND MICHAEL MORTON, Appellants, v.
ANDREW PHILLIPS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
DOROTHY PHILLIPS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES
OF DOROTHY PHILLIPS; AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-18-45. (Ark.).
In this interlocutory appeal, Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center LLC, et al., appealed from the Pulaski County Circuit
Court's order denying motions to compel arbitration of the class
action complaint commenced by Andrew Phillips, on behalf of the
estate of Dorothy Phillips, and others.
On September 4, 2015, Phillips filed a first amended class action
complaint against Robinson alleging claims that Robinson had
breached its admissions and provider agreements, violated the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), committed
negligence and civil conspiracy, and has been unjustly enriched.
Phillips filed an amended motion for class certification on
September 10, 2015, requesting that a class be certified of all
residents and estates of residents who resided at Robinson from
June 11, 2010 to the present.
The circuit court granted class certification on March 4, 2016.
Robinson appealed. The Appellate Court has affirmed the grant of
class certification with respect to Phillips's breach-of-contract,
ADTPA, and unjust-enrichment claims, but reversed with respect to
the negligence claim.
On Sept. 1, 2017, Robinson filed a motion to compel arbitration
with regard to nine class members/residents with arbitration
agreements that had been signed by the residents' legal guardians.
This motion was later supplemented to add one additional class
member. Robinson also filed separate motions to compel arbitration
as to 105 residents who had signed the agreements on their own
behalf and as to 158 residents whose agreements had been signed by
a person with power of attorney over that resident. On Sept. 5,
2017, Robinson filed a fourth motion to compel arbitration as to
271 residents who had "responsible parties" execute arbitration
agreements on their behalf.
The circuit court summarily ruled at a Sept. 22, 2017 hearing that
all four of Robinson's motions to compel arbitration were denied.
A written order generally denying the motions to compel was entered
on Oct. 19, 2017, and Robinson filed a timely notice of appeal from
the order.
On appeal, Robinson argued that the circuit court erred in denying
its motions to compel arbitration. Robinson contends that the 544
arbitration agreements at issue were valid and enforceable; that
the claims asserted by Phillips were within the scope of the
agreements; and that the circuit court's ruling was contrary to the
Appellate Court's strong policy in favor of arbitration.
On review, the Appellate Court conclude that Robinson failed to
demonstrate that the individuals signing the arbitrations
agreements were acting in an individual rather than a
representative capacity. Because there was no valid arbitration
agreement between Robinson and these individuals, the circuit court
correctly denied Robinson's motion to compel arbitration with
respect to the 271 class members, the Appellate Court opines.
The Appellate Court further agrees with the reasoning in Hickory
Heights Health & Rehab, LLC v. Adams, 2018 Ark. App. 560, 566
S.W.3d 134 (Adams) and conclude that the arbitration agreements
containing the $30,000 limitation in the current case lack
mutuality. As in Adams, the Appellate Court believes that the
arbitration agreements serve to shield Robinson from defending
itself in the court system against the majority of potential claims
by residents, while reserving its right to utilize the court system
for its likely claims. Accordingly, these arbitration agreements
are not valid or enforceable, and the circuit court correctly
denied the motions to compel as to these agreements, the Appellate
Court opines.
Moreover, the Appellate Court agrees that Robinson's failure to
sign certain arbitration agreements is fatal to the validity of
these agreements. It is a matter of basic contract law that,
without its signature, Robinson is unable to demonstrate such
mutual assent. Thus, the Appellate Court affirms the circuit
court's denial of the motions to compel with respect to the
arbitration agreements that were not signed by Robinson.
Phillips also challenges the validity of the 105 arbitration
agreements signed by the residents on another basis. He contends
that Robinson has exclusive access to the information needed to
determine the residents' competency at the time they signed the
arbitration agreements, but that Robinson has refused to provide
this information. Thus, Phillips argues that Robinson has failed to
demonstrate the essential element of competency. After reviewing
records, the Appellate Court finds that Robinson has failed to meet
its burden of proving a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement
with respect to each of the agreements that contain the
deficiencies previously discussed. Accordingly, the circuit court's
order denying the motions to compel arbitration are affirmed as to
those agreements, the Appellate Court rules.
As to the remainder of the arbitration agreements not already
discussed, the Appellate Court says
Robinson has met its burden to prove the validity of those
agreements. Thus, the next threshold issue that must be addressed
is whether the claims asserted by Phillips fall within the scope of
those remaining arbitration agreements. Depending on the version of
the arbitration agreement, the language states that it applies
broadly to any and all claims, disputes, and controversies arising
out of, or in connection with, or relating in any way to the
Admission Agreement or any service or health care provided or to
all disputes arising from this or any future stays in this
Facility. Phillips does not contend that the claims brought in this
class action do not fall within the scope of these arbitration
agreements and the Supreme Court concludes that this requirement is
satisfied here.
The Appellate Court thus reverses and remands with respect to those
arbitration agreements not otherwise held to be invalid by this
opinion.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y36sxx4c from Leagle.com
Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC (Little Rock), by: Jeffrey W. Hatfield
- jhatfield@hardinlaw.com - Kynda Almefty - kalmefty@hardinlaw.com
- and Carol Ricketts - cricketts@hardinlaw.com - ; and Hardin,
Jesson & Terry, PLC (Fort Smith), by: Kirkman T. Dougherty -
kdougherty@hardinlaw.com - and Stephanie I. Randall , Arvest Bank
Tower 5000 Rogers Avenue, Suite 500 Fort Smith, AR 72917, for
appellants.
Campbell Law Firm, P.A. by: H. Gregory Campbell -
greg@campbellackermanlaw.com - and Reddick Moss, PLLC by: Brian D.
Reddick , 1 Information Way #105, Little Rock, AR 72202, for
appellees.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of Carroll FEHA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
issued an Opinion reversing a trial court's entry of a Stipulated
Dismissal of the case JOYCE CARROLL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. A155208. (Cal. App.)
Plaintiff Joyce Carroll appealed the trial court's entry of a
stipulated dismissal with prejudice of her age discrimination
complaint under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Plaintiff was 43 years old when she began working for the City and
County of San Francisco. She worked for the City for approximately
15 years before retiring at age 58 due to rheumatoid arthritis.
Plaintiff applied for disability retirement, and the City granted
her request shortly thereafter. Since then, plaintiff has received
monthly disability retirement benefit payments from defendants.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, alleging that defendants
discriminate on the basis of age in violation of FEHA by providing
reduced disability retirement benefits to older employees who took
disability retirement after working for the City for less than
22.22 years.
The dismissal followed the trial court's order sustaining
defendants' demurrer on the ground that plaintiff did not file a
complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)
within one year of the date the alleged unlawful employment
practice occurred.
The Appellate Court considers whether plaintiff's disparate
treatment and disparate impact claims were timely under FEHA.
On review, the Appellate Court rejected a restrictive
interpretation of FEHA and held that plaintiff's FEHA claim accrued
on the date of his discharge, not when he was informed of his
discharge.
The Appellate Court also opines that the putative class action
claim for use of a systemic discriminatory policy during the
limitations period to the detriment of the class is timely under
Alch v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339.
Moreover, the Appellate Judge opines that on the face of her
complaint, the injury that plaintiff alleges arise from the
Defendant's act is not subject to immunity under Section 818.2 of
the Government Tort Claims Act.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
ruling.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxlarf39 from Leagle.com
Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall B. Aiman-Smith - ras@asmlawyers.com -
Reed W. L. Marcy - rwlm@asmlawyers.com - Hallie L. Von Rock -
hvr@asmlawyers.com - Carey A. James -caj@asmlawyers.com - Brent A.
Robinson , for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Dennis J. Herrera , City Attorney, Katherine H. Porter , Joseph M.
Lake , Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Respondents.
SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION: Calhoun Suit Moved to N.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandbox Transportation, LLC removed the case captioned as TOMMY
CALHOUN, JR., on behalf Of himself and all others Similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION, LLC, D/B/A SANDBOX
LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-215 (Keeley) (Filed
Oct. 25, 2019), from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West
Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia on Dec. 4, 2019.
The Northern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-00215-IMK to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts that he and others "similarly situated" are
entitled to unpaid overtime premium pay for work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that he and others "similarly situated" worked 16 hours per day,
days per week, for straight time/ pay without overtime pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Sandbox Transportation is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business from Houston,
Texas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrea J. Johnson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One PPG Place - Suite 1900
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 394-3333
E-mail: andrea.johnson@ogletree.com
SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Fife Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00565
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton entered an order dated
November 25, 2019, granting a Stipulated Motion for Entry of
Scheduling Order. The Schedule provides for:
-- Class certification fact discovery cutoff 5/22/20,
-- Class expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2)
due by 6/19/2020,
-- Class rebuttal Expert Disclosure/Reports due by 7/10/2020,
-- Class expert discovery cutoff 8/7/20,
-- Class certification motions due by 8/28/2020.
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on April 17, 2018,
a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v.
Scientific Games Corp., against the company's Parent, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in
the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual
coins playing the company's online social casino games, including
but not limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish Casino.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's
Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer
protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages (including treble damages as
appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and injunctive and/or
declaratory relief.
On July 2, 2018, the company's Parent filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied
on December 18, 2018. The company's Parent filed its answer to the
putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019.
SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
Although the case was brought against Scientific Games, pursuant to
the Intercompany Services Agreement, we would expect to cover or
contribute to any damage awards due to the matter arising as a
result of our business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay is a subsidiary of Scientific Games
Corporation.
SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Good Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by John Good.
On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative
class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay,
certain of its executives and directors, Scientific Games
Corporation, and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to SciPlay's
initial public offering.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to
SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May
7, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.
SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if
any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit,
and intend to vigorously defend against them."
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCIPLAY CORP: Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by the Police
Retirement System of St. Louis.
On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state
court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and
SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities
who acquired Class A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement filed and issued in
connection with SciPlay's initial public offering on or about May
3, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at
least $144.7 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the
class’s reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.
SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if
any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit,
and intend to vigorously defend against them."
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shasta Beverages, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned as JAIME
GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC.,
NATIONAL BEVPAK, NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV37651 (Filed Oct. 22,
2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Dec. 2, 2019, under the Class Action Fairness
Act.
According to the complaint, the putative class is "all current and
former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of
the Defendants within the State of California at any time during
the period from four years preceding the filing of the complaint to
final judgment and who reside in California."
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the
California Labor Code.
Shasta Beverages is an American soft drink manufacturer which
markets a value priced soft drink line with a wide variety of soda
flavors under the brand name Shasta. The company name is derived
from Mount Shasta in Northern California and an associated spring.
National Beverage Corp. is an American beverage developer,
manufacturer, and distributor based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
focused on flavored soft drinks.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher J. Kondon, Esq.
Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
Jonathan D. Kintzele, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310 552 5000
Facsimile: 310 552 5001
E-mail: christopher.kondon@klgates.com
saman.rejali@klgates.com
jonathan.kintzele@klgates.com
SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
the case, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Skechers USA,
Inc., Robert Greenberg, and David Weinberg, have taken an appeal
from the court's decision granting the company's motion to
dismiss.
On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a
five-month period in 2015, against our Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.
On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
the company made materially false statements or omissions of
material fact about the anticipated performance of the company's
Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief based on two counts
for alleged violations of federal securities laws. On November 21,
2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition and on February
11, 2019, the company filed a reply. On September 23, 2019, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss without leave to
amend and on October 22, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed it to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the
limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of
this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case
would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial
position. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
defend this matter vigorously."
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.
SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss in the class action suit entitled, In Re Skechers
Securities Litigation (formerly Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v.
Skechers USA, Inc. Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg, and John
Vandemore), is pending.
On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund filed a
securities class action on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased the Company's stock
between October 20, 2017, and July 19, 2018 (the "Class Period"),
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case
number 1:18-cv-8039.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period we made
materially false statements or omissions of material fact regarding
our sales growth and controlling expenses and asserts claims for
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.
Beginning October 17, 2018, copycat cases were filed and on January
22, 2019, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
as In Re Skechers Securities Litigation.
On May 13, 2019, the company filed a motion dismiss the complaint.
On June 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on July 29,
2019, we filed a reply. There is no hearing date set.
Skechers said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend
to defend these matters vigorously. Given the early stages of these
proceedings and the limited information available, we cannot
predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or whether an
adverse result in these cases would have a material adverse impact
on our operations or financial position."
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.
SKECHERS USA: Hearing This Month on Bid to Compel Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the hearing on the
motion to compel arbitration in Jose Zavala Guzman v. Team One
Employment Specialists, Skechers USA, Inc. et. al., is set for
January 30, 2020.
On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class
action lawsuit against Team One and the Company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No.
19STCV11006.
The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and
restitution.
This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney General's Act
Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the complaint.
This matter was tendered to the company's insurance carrier, and
the company is currently investigating the allegations.
Co-defendant Team-One has filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which the Company has joined in.
The hearing is set for January 30, 2020 and the matter is otherwise
stayed until then.
Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of
the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and
whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on
our results of operations or financial position, we believe that we
have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and
intend to defend the case vigorously."
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.
SKECHERS USA: Mediation in Wilk Class Suit Set for Jan. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that mediation in the
class action suit entitled, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
is scheduled for January 27, 2020.
On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative collective
action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
5:18-cv-01921, alleging violations of the California Labor Code,
including unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and
unfair business practices.
The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general
damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as
permitted by law. On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part,
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.
On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the court an agreed upon
notice to be sent to members of the collective.
Mediation is scheduled for January 27, 2020.
The parties are delaying the mailing of the Belaire West privacy
opt out notice until after mediation.
The parties have agreed to an informal stay of discovery until
after mediation and have stipulated to continue all relevant
discovery and motion deadlines accordingly.
The deadline for the Court to hear a motion for class certification
and/or summary judgment is April 6, 2020. Trial is set for June 16,
2020.
Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.
SMASHBURGER IP: Court Issues Protective Order in Galvan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John E. McDermott of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has entered a stipulated Protective Order in
IN RE: SMASHBURGER IP HOLDER LLC, et al. ALL CASES, Lead Case No.
2:19-cv-00993-JAK (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.).
The Defendants in the case, Smashburger IP Holder and Smashburger
Franchising, LLC, are involved in restaurants that sell, among
other things, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, and fries. The Plaintiffs
have brought a class action lawsuit against the Defendants on
behalf of purchasers of a hamburger called the "Triple Double."
The Parties expect that discovery in the case will include the
Defendants' commercially sensitive information, such as sales
figures, expenses, pricing, and marketing plans. The Defendants
believe they would be harmed if that information was publicly
disclosed, because, for example, such information could give their
competitors an advantage. The Parties expect that discovery in the
case will also include some private or confidential personal
information relating to the Plaintiffs in which they have a
reasonable expectation of privacy. Additionally, the action is
likely to involve valuable and confidential research and
development, trade secrets, future marketing plans, and information
that could potentially give Defendants' competitors a competitive
advantage and/or cause the Defendants harm.
Thus, and based on the request of the Parties, and good cause being
found, Judge McDermott ordered that any party to the litigation or
any third party will have the right to designate as "Confidential
Material" and subject to the Order any information, document, or
thing, or portion of any document or thing, that (a) contains
competitively sensitive technical, marketing, financial, sales, or
other confidential business information, (b) contains private or
confidential personal information, (c) contains information
received in confidence from third parties, or (d) the producing
party otherwise believes in good faith to be entitled to protection
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). Any party or third party
covered by this Order that produces or discloses any Confidential
Material will mark it with the following or a substantially similar
legend: "CONFIDENTIAL."
Any party to the litigation or any third party will have the right
to designate as "Attorneys' Eyes Only Material" and subject to this
Order any information, document, or thing, or portion of any
document or thing, that the designating party reasonably believes
is among that considered to be most sensitive by the party. Any
party to the litigation or third party covered by the Order that
produces or discloses any Attorneys' Eyes Only Material will mark
the same with the following, or a substantially similar, legend:
"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY."
Any Confidential Material or Attorneys' Eyes Only Material produced
in a non-paper medium (e.g., videotape, audiotape, computer disc)
may be so designated by labeling the outside of such non-paper
medium, as appropriate, with the following, or a substantially
similar, legend: "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -
ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." In the event a receiving party generates
any electronic copy, hard copy, transcription, or printout from any
such designated non-paper medium, that party, and all persons
subject to the Order, must treat each copy as the original was
designated and label it in a manner consistent with this Order.
All designations of Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only
Material will be made in good faith and in accordance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). If it comes to a designating party's
attention that information or items that it designated for
protection do not qualify for protection, that designating party
must promptly notice all other parties that it is withdrawing the
inapplicable designation.
All Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material will be
used by the receiving party solely for purposes of the prosecution
or defense of the action. They may be disclosed only to the
authorized individuals under certain conditions.
With respect to depositions during which there has been a general
designation of testimony as Confidential Material or Attorneys'
Eyes Only Material, the party or third party designating the
testimony as Confidential Material or Attorneys' Eyes Only Material
will have until 21 days after receipt of the deposition transcript
within which to inform all parties the specific portions of the
transcript that are to be designated as Confidential Material or
Attorneys' Eyes Only Material, which period may be extended by
agreement of the parties.
Within 60 days of the termination of litigation between the
parties, including conclusion of all appeals and the expiration of
time to appeal or seek further review, each party or other person
or entity subject to the terms thereof shall, if the producing
party or third party so requests, (a) assemble and return to the
producing party or third party or destroy all original and unmarked
copies of documents and things containing Confidential Material and
Attorneys' Eyes Only Material; and (b) destroy all copies of
Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material that
contain or constitute attorney work product as well as excerpts,
summaries and digests revealing Confidential Material and
Attorneys' Eyes Only Material; provided, however, that outside
counsel may retain one copy of all transcripts and pleadings, and
any exhibits thereto, as well as electronic copies, subject to the
provisions of the Protective Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Protective Order is
available at https://is.gd/YU9BOb from Leagle.com.
Andre Galvan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Blair Elizabeth Reed, Bursor
and Fisher PA, Adam T. Hoover -- adhoover@reichradcliffe.com --
Reich Radcliffe and Hoover LLP, Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher PA & Marc G. Reich --
mgr@reichradcliffe.com -- Reich Radcliffe and Hoover LLP.
Lucinda Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher,
Bursor and Fisher PA & Blair Elizabeth Reed, Bursor and Fisher PA.
Barbara Trevino, Plaintiff, represented by Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and
Wolfson PC, Bradley K. King, Ahdoot and Wolfson APC & Blair
Elizabeth Reed, Bursor and Fisher PA.
Thu Thuy Nguyen, Robert Meyer & Jamelia Harris, Plaintiffs,
represented by Blair Elizabeth Reed, Bursor and Fisher PA.
Smashburger IP Holder LLC & Smashburger Franchising LLC,
Defendants, represented by Adina Witzling Stowell --
astowell@UmbergZipser.com -- Umberg Zipser LLP, Dean J. Zipser --
dzipser@UmbergZipser.com -- Umberg Zipser LLP & Mark A. Finkelstein
-- mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com -- Umberg Zipser LLP.
ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY: Ware Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists
---------------------------------------------------------------
GERALDINE WARE, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. ST. JOHN'S
COMMUNITY SERVICES, ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY SERVICES (TENNESSEE), ST.
JOHN'S COMMUNITY SERVICES (PENNSYLVANIA), and ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY
SERVICES (VIRGINIA), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01281 (W.D.
Tenn., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and members of the proposed
class under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and the class are current and former hourly-paid
service specialists employed by the Defendants during the three
years preceding the filing of the collective action.
The Defendants are an integrated enterprise that provide service
and support to individuals with disabilities and their families in
various counties in Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in Anderson Class Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
StoneMor Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' appeal on the
order of dismissal in the class action suit entitled,
Anderson v. StoneMor Partners, LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6111, filed
on November 21, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs in this case (as well as Klein v. StoneMor Partners,
LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6275, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 2, 2016,
which has been consolidated with this case) brought an action on
behalf of a putative class of the holders of Partnership units and
allege that the Partnership made misrepresentations to investors in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by, among other things and in general, failing to clearly disclose
the use of proceeds from debt and equity offerings by making
allegedly false or misleading statements concerning (a) the
Partnership's strength or health in connection with a particular
quarter's distribution announcement, (b) the connection between
operations and distributions and (c) the Partnership's use of cash
from equity offerings and its credit facility.
Plaintiffs sought damages from the Partnership and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of the class of Partnership
unitholders, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.
Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in this case, and filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 24, 2017.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 8, 2017. The motion was granted on October 31,
2017, and the court entered judgment dismissing the case on
November 30, 2017.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 2017. Oral
argument was held before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on November 1, 2018. On June 20, 2019, the Third
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' case.
On July 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition to have the
appeal reheard by the entire Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit
denied on September 16, 2019.
Plaintiffs have 90 days from that date to file a petition for
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to seek
discretionary review of the Third Circuit's decision.
StoneMor Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates cemeteries and funeral homes in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Cemetery Operations and Funeral Home
Operations. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Trevose, Pennsylvania.
SWEPI LP: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Rogers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States has denied the petition for
a writ of certiorari by plaintiff in a lawsuit against Swepi LP and
Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC.
The case is captioned as, MATT A. ROGERS, INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Applicant, SWEPI LP
AND SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC, the Respondents, Case No. 18-1565
(U.S.). The plaintiff is taking an appeal from a decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The putative class action involves a claim that the Applicant
breached a contractual "signing bonus" payment obligation that
induced Rogers and hundreds of other rural landowners in eastern
Ohio to sign oil and gas leases with Shell. After Rogers signed his
lease, Shell terminated the lease without paying the signing bonus
to Rogers. The lease contains an arbitration clause -- but that
clause did not become effective when the lease was executed, and
instead would become effective only if certain conditions
occurred.
After Rogers filed suit to recover the signing bonus, Shell moved
to compel arbitration. The District Court denied Shell's motion,
agreeing with Rogers that, under the terms of the parties'
agreement, the arbitration clause did not become binding and
effective until Shell performed its obligation to pay the signing
bonus.
The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on June 19, 2019.
The petition was denied on Nov. 4.[BN]
Attorneys for the Petitioner are:
Robert Sabre Safi, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
E-mail: rsafi@susmangodfrey.com
THRASHER BUSCHMANN: Court Dismisses Amended Gunn FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHRISTOPHER GUNN and LINDA GUNN, Plaintiffs,
v. THRASHER, BUSCHMANN & VOELKEL, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01385-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division:
(i) granted TBV's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint;
(ii) granted Gunns' Motion for Leave to Respond to New Matter
In Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint; and
(iii) overruled TBV's Objection to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to File Surreply and Motion to Strike Same.
After Plaintiffs Linda and Christopher Gunn allegedly failed to pay
certain homeowners association fees, the homeowners association
retained Defendant Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel ("TBV"), a
collection agency and law firm, to collect the debt. On July 16,
2018, TBV then sent a collection letter to the Gunns, which the
Gunns claim contains statements that violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
Subsequently, TBV initiated a small claims lawsuit against the
Gunns in Hamilton Superior Court on Oct. 3, 2018. Six months
later, on April 5, 2019, the Gunns filed the putative class action
against TBV, and filed the operative Amended Complaint on June 24,
2019.
In the Amended Complaint, the Gunns focus on the statements in the
Letter that if it is a landlord-tenant matter, the Creditor may
also seek eviction or ejection. If the Creditor has recorded a
mechanic's lien, covenants, mortgage, or security agreement, it may
seek to foreclose such mechanic's lien, covenants, mortgage, or
security agreement. They allege that the Letter violates 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) by
referring to remedies which TBV is not entitled to invoke and did
not intend to invoke with respect to the particular debt.
TBV has moved to dismiss the Gunns' Amended Complaint, and the
Gunns have filed a Motion for Leave to Respond to New Matter In
Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint. Additionally, TBV has objected to, and moved to strike,
the Gunns' Motion for Leave.
In their Motion for Leave, the Gunns argue that TBV's Sept. 3, 2019
Reply in Support of Attorney Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint set forth entirely new theories asserted
for the first time. The Gunns contend that TBV has asserted new
legal theories in two ways. First, they claim that TBV's assertion
that the Gunns' allegations are "conclusory" constitutes a new
legal theory because TBV had not made that allegation before.
Second, the Gunns argue that TBV's citation of new case law is a
new legal theory to which the Gunns should be granted leave to
respond.
TBV argues in its Motion to Strike that these are not "entirely new
theories" at all, but rather reiterations of the same arguments
made throughout the case. First, TBV contends that it has made the
"conclusory" argument before, including when discussing the
heightened pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal in its Brief
in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. TBV then points out that
citing new case law is not the same thing as asserting new legal
theories, and that TBV only cited new case law to counteract the
Gunns' "misplaced reliance" on another case. Finally, TBV argues
that the Gunns' Motion for Leave should be struck from the record
due to the Gunns' improper inclusion of substantive arguments in
the Motion.
Although the Gunns requested leave to reply to "new theories," they
included their arguments in the Motion for Leave itself. While it
is not an invitation for future parties before the Court to include
substantive arguments in the Motion itself, Judge Magnus-Stinson
will treat the Motion for Leave as a surreply and consider the
arguments that the Gunns have presented. Accordingly, she granted
the Gunns' Motion for Leave, to the extent that it considers the
arguments included in the Motion. She also overrules TBV's
Objection to the Gunns' Motion for Leave and denies its Motion to
Strike the Motion for Leave.
In its Motion to Dismiss, TBV argues that the statement if the
Creditor has recorded a mechanic's lien, covenants, mortgage, or
security agreement, it may seek to foreclose such mechanic's lien,
covenants, mortgage, or security agreement is a correct statement
of Indiana law, so it may not provide the basis for an FDCPA claim.
The Judge finds that the Gunns have failed to allege facts showing
that the Letter violates Section 1692e. The statements at issue
are true, and would not plausibly deceive or mislead even the
unsophisticated consumer. The Gunns have therefore failed to state
a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e upon which relief may be
granted, and TBV's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/n11crR from Leagle.com.
CHRISTOPHER GUNN & LINDA GUNN, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class,
Plaintiffs, represented by Cathleen Maria Combs, EDELMAN COMBS
LATTURNER GOODWIN & Daniel A. Edelman, EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER &
GOODWIN LLC.
THRASHER, BUSCHMANN & VOELKEL, P.C., Defendant, represented by Dina
M. Cox -- dcox@lewiswagner.com -- LEWIS WAGNER LLP & Joseph Neal
Bowling -- nbowling@lewiswagner.com -- LEWIS WAGNER LLP.
TRILOGY WAREHOUSE: McClellan Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT MCCLELLAN AND ISAAC BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TRILOGY WAREHOUSE PARTNERS II LLC,
seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage,
and disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class'
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, allegedly 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 Plaintiffs,
to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
The Plaintiffs and the Class members may be aggrieved because
Defendant may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to
third-party vendors in violation of BIPA, the lawsuit says. The
Plaintiffs and the putative Class are aggrieved by the Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant at Trilogy Warehouse in
Illinois.
Trilogy Warehouse is in engaged in aerospace manufacturing
operation.
The Plaintiffs are 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
TRIPOLI GOURMET: Rojas Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN JAVIER ROJAS v. TRIPOLI GOURMET CORP., doing business as SW
ALLOW CAFE, and NASSIM SALEM and SALEH SALEM, individually, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06765 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks to recover for
similarly situated employees unpaid wages, minimum wages, and
overtime compensation; liquidated damages; prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Tripoli Gourmet Corp., doing
business as Swallow Cafe, in Kings County, New York, beginning on
August 23, 2015, through August 20, 2019, without interruption.
Nassim Salem and Saleh Salem are owners, shareholders, officers,
directors, supervisors, and/or managing agents of Tripoli Gourmet
Corp.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 61st Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@icpclaw.com
TUSCAWILLA REALTY: Pitts Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER PITTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUSCAWILLA REALTY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-02282-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, to solicit new clients, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights
of the recipients of those messages. The Defendant caused thousands
of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones
of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
Through the action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and Class Members, any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant.
The Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in Coral Springs,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 786 496 4469
E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 533 4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
TWO RIVER: Parshall Class Suit Filed over OceanFirst Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two River Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
facing a class action suit entitled, Paul Parshall v. Two River
Bancorp, et al., Docket No. C-124-19.
On August 9, 2019, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with OceanFirst Financial Corp., a parent company of
OceanFirst Bank N.A. Under the Merger Agreement, the Company will
merge into OceanFirst, and, upon completion of that merger, the
Bank will merge into OceanFirst Bank.
The mergers are expected to close in the first quarter of 2020,
subject to the Company receiving the requisite approval of its
shareholders, receipt of all required regulatory approvals, and
fulfillment of other customary closing conditions.
On October 4, 2019, a purported Two River shareholder filed a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company,
certain members of the Company's board, and OceanFirst in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, Chancery Division,
captioned Paul Parshall v. Two River Bancorp, et al., Docket No.
C-124-19.
The action generally alleges that the registration statement on
Form S-4 filed by OceanFirst with the SEC on September 20, 2019,
which included a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, omitted
certain material information with respect to the merger and related
transactions and that members of the Company's board breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement because the
merger is financially inadequate.
Plaintiffs further allege that OceanFirst aided and abetted such
alleged breaches. The action seeks to enjoin the merger (or, if the
merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory damages), as well
as unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees and
expense.
OceanFirst and Two River believe the claims in the lawsuit are
without merit and intend to defend such claims vigorously.
Two River Bancorp is the holding company for Two River Community
Bank, which is headquartered in Tinton Falls, New Jersey. Two River
Community Bank operates 15 branches and 2 Loan Production Offices
throughout Monmouth, Middlesex, Union, and Ocean Counties, New
Jersey.
UBIQUITI INC: Settlement Reached in NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a proposed
settlement has been reached in the consolidated class action suit
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul
Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.
The Vanderheiden Action complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or
misleading statements, including purported overstatements of the
Company's online community user engagement metrics and accounts
receivable.
On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar
purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 and John Kho v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242, respectively, were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On October 24, 2018, the court consolidated the Class Actions and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Plaintiff filed its
Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 24, 2018. On March 21,
2019, Defendants informed the Court that they were prepared to move
to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint but that, consistent
with the Court's individual practices, they would refrain from
filing that motion pending receipt of further guidance from the
Court.
While the Company believes that the Consolidated Class Action is
without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself, there can be
no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company cannot
currently estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
that it may experience in connection with this litigation.
On October 16, 2019, the parties in the Consolidated Class Action
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Class
Action (the "Proposed Settlement"). Certain insurers of the Company
have agreed to fully fund the Proposed Settlement, including any
award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel. The Proposed
Settlement remains subject to definitive documentation and court
approval.
Ubiquiti Inc. develops technology platforms for high-capacity
distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and
consumer electronics for professional, home and personal use. The
company categorizes its solutions in to three main categories: high
performance networking technology for service providers,
enterprises and consumers. The company targets the services
providers and enterprise markets through its highly engaged
community of service providers, distributors, value added
resellers, systems integrators and corporate IT professionals,
which the company refers to as the Ubiquiti Community. The company
is based in New York, New York.
UNDER ARMOUR: Appeal in Securities Class Suit in Maryland Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit entitled, In re Under Armour Securities
Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB, is pending.
On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland were consolidated under the caption In re
Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB.
On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action,
North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and former Chief Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and
Brad Dickerson.
The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act
against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that
the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding,
among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for
certain of the Company's products.
The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September
16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, in connection with the Company's public offering
of senior unsecured notes in June 2016.
The Securities Act claims are asserted against the Company, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Molloy, the Company's
directors who signed the registration statement pursuant to which
the offering was made and the underwriters that participated in the
offering.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials utilized
in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading
statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products.
On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018,
the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with
prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice.
The lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 16,
2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and naming the
Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants. The remaining
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the District Court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
In September 2019, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit challenging the decisions by the District Court on
September 19, 2018 and August 19, 2019 (the "Appeal").
Briefing in connection with the Appeal is expected to be completed
by the end of 2019.
The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Action and the Appeal are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Under Armour said, "However, because of the inherent uncertainty as
to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this
time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this
matter."
Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Patel Class Action in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
facing a purported shareholder class action suit entitled, Kirtan
Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No 1:19-cv-03209-RDB.
On November 6, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
securities case in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against the Company and the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Operating
Officer, as well as a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company
(captioned Kirtan Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No
1:19-cv-03209-RDB).
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5)
of the Exchange Act, against all defendants, and Section 20(a)
control person liability under the Exchange Act against the current
and former officers named in the complaint.
The complaint claims that the defendants' disclosures and
statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company
was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly
to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by
and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice and
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission since July
2017. The class period identified in the complaint is August 3,
2016 through November 1, 2019, inclusive.
Under Armour said, "The Company has not yet been served with the
complaint. The Company believes that the claims are without merit
and, once served, intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of
this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the
possible impact of this matter."
Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
UNDER ARMOUR: Suit over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consumer class action lawsuit related to the
company's MyFitnessPal application and website.
In 2018, an unauthorized third party acquired data associated with
the Company's Connected Fitness users' accounts for the Company's
MyFitnessPal application and website.
Consumer class action lawsuits in connection with this incident
remain pending, and the Company has received inquiries regarding
the incident from certain government regulators and agencies.
Under Armour said, "The Company does not currently consider these
matters to be material and believes its insurance coverage will
provide coverage should any significant expense arise."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Relyea Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEVI RELYEA, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other
employees similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 5:19-cv-01491-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that
the Defendant violates the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor by failing to pay its employees minimum and overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant UPS from June 12, 2017
to date at the UPS facility in Ithaca, New York. The Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees work, or have worked, for UPS as
hourly, part-time, seasonal and/or temporary Pre-loaders, Package
Handlers, Drivers, Cover Drivers and Air Drivers.
UPS is engaged in the business of domestic and international
package delivery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan Matusz, Esq.
29 Murfield Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Telephone: 607-319-5513
E-mail: stanmatusz@gmail.com
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File 2nd Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs'
motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint in the
class action suit entitled, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et
al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al., is pending.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file
a second amended complaint.
In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.
The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services,
Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court
subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs.
The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been
changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal
Health Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS).
In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made
in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations
at the Company's behavioral health facilities.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the
defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price
following various public disclosures or reports.
In December, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
In August, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file
a second amended complaint.
Universal Health said, "Should the court deny plaintiffs' motion,
we anticipate an appeal of the dismissal of the case. We deny
liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time,
we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure,
if any, which may be associated with this matter."
Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and
behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through
Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and
Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and
is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, McElroy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN MCELROY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06782 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law by underpaying the overtime wages of its security
guards.
The Plaintiff and all similarly situated are current and former
hourly employees of the Defendant since December 2016. The
Defendant employed Plaintiff as a security guard in the security
services industry. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant full-time as
a security guard from February 2019 until September 2019 at the
Defendant's World Trade Center location.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Collective
overtime wages based on the correct regular rate for hours worked
in excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant provides security services to its clients in and
around the City of New York and its metropolitan area,
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Wims, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Telephone: (646) 393-9550
UNLOCKED BUSINESS: Abante Rooter Sues Over Auto-Dialed Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., a California corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNLOCKED BUSINESS STRATEGIES, INC., a New York
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-07966 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 4,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing auto-dialed calls to cellphone
owners, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant, in an attempt to secure
new customers (and sales) and leads for the merchant processing
companies, engaged in an aggressive telemarketing campaign--often
stepping outside the law in the process, the Plaintiff contends.
Specifically, the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellphone
numbers, the lawsuit says.
Abante is a plumbing company headquartered in Emeryville, Alameda
County, California.
UBSI is a telemarketer that targets consumers and businesses for
its point of sale (POS) and merchant processing systems, i.e.,
credit card scanners and other point of sale systems that
businesses can use to accept credit and debit card payments.
UBSI makes telemarketing calls to solicit sales of POS systems from
national merchant payment processors like First Data and TSYS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Weinstein, Esq.
P.O. Box 27414
Oakland, CA 94602
Telephone: (510) 336-2181
Facsimile: (510) 336-2181
E-mail: steveattorney@comcast.net
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
USF REDDAWAY: Rivera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
USF Reddway Inc. removed the case titled MONICA RIVERA,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. USF REDDAWAY INC., an Oregon Corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV38679 (Filed Oct.
29, 2019), from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 2, 2019,
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-10218 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. She worked
for the Defendants from July 2019 to August 26, 2019, as a driver.
Ms. Rivera alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages in
violation to the California Labor Code.
Reddaway is an American trucking company based in Oregon.[BN]
Reddaway is represented by:
Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
Pankit J. Doshi, Esq.
Philip Shecter, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
415 Mission St., Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: 628 218 3800
Facsimile: 628 877 0107
E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com
pdoshi@mwe.com
pshecter@mwe.com
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in CCERF Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virtu Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the
case, Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings,
Inc., et al., have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter.
In connection with the Acquisition of KCG, a previously filed
complaint, which was initially captioned Greenway v. KCG Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-421-JTL and filed on behalf of a
putative class in Delaware Chancery Court, was recaptioned Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al.,
amended and refiled on February 14, 2018 to include claims for the
alleged breach of fiduciary duties against former KCG board
members, claims against each of the Company and Jefferies LLC for
allegedly aiding and abetting the KCG board members' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and a claim against the Company and
Jefferies LLC for alleged civil conspiracy.
The amended complaint was again amended on July 16, 2018 with the
filing of the Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint to
include additional factual allegations.
In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter.
The agreement is subject to customary conditions including
execution of definitive settlement documentation and final court
approval. The proposed settlement contains no admission of any
liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom
continues to deny all of the allegations against them and believes
that the claims are without merit.
Virtu Financial said, "Though the Company believes the likelihood
of approval of the settlement is probable, we cannot predict with
certainty the outcome of the litigation, and if an agreement is not
reached or the settlement is not finally approved by the Court, we
believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims in the
operative complaint."
Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
market making and liquidity services through its proprietary,
multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the
financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in
2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Virtu Financial,
Inc. was formerly a subsidiary of TJMT Holdings LLC.
WIWI 1 NAIL: Li FLSA Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WEIDONG LI, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. WIWI 1 NAIL & SPA INC. d/b/a WiWi
Nails & Spa; WIWI NAILS & SPA INC. d/b/a WiWi Nails & Spa;
RONGGUANG FU a/k/a Rong Guang Fu, KUANLIANG HU a/k/a Kuan Liang Hu,
XUBO LU a/k/a Xu Bo Lu, WEI WANG, and JIXIN CAI a/k/a Ji Xin Cai,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06120 (Filed July 1, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
Court of New York on Dec. 3, 2019.
The Northern District Court of New York Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 6:19-cv-01488-FJS-ML to the proceeding.
The action is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as
well as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New
York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willfully and
unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.
From April 15, 2019, to June 22, 2019, the Plaintiff was employed
by the Defendants to work as a nail saloon worker and masseur in
Oneonta, New York.
The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid wage and unpaid overtime wages, an award of
out-of-pocket breach-of-contract costs for gloves and masks
incurred and expended by the Plaintiff on the Defendants' bequest
and behalf; liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and or attorney's fees and cost.
The Corporate Defendants are engaged in spa business. The
Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers and/or
majority shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendant and
being among the ten largest shareholders.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 76 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend 76 unresolved lawsuits over injuries related to
PROFEMUR(R).
The company had received claims for personal injury against it
associated with fractures of the PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck
product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims).
As of September 29, 2019, there were approximately 23 unresolved
pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 53 unresolved pending
non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims (44 of which are part of a
single consolidated class action lawsuit in Canada). These lawsuits
generally seek monetary damages.
Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
YELP INC: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California has approved a stipulation to
certify a class in a securities class action.
In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the company and certain of its officers.
The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the company and its
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and operations on
February 9, 2017.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On August 2, 2018, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on November 27, 2018.
On October 22, 2019 the Court approved a stipulation to certify a
class in this action.
The case remains pending.
Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Stays Karl Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, in October 2019, stayed the case captioned
JAMES KARL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOMET U.S.
RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; BIOMET
BIOLOGICS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; and BIOMET,
INC., and Indiana corporation, Defendants, Case No. C 18-04176 WHA.
(N.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit was filed under alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
The Stay was entered pending a resolution of an appeal on an
amended order on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The
order has been certified for interlocutory appeal on issues of
whether plaintiff James Karl was an exempt outside salesperson
under federal and California law.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y46zlcea from Leagle.com
James Karl, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alec Llewellyn
Segarich - alec.segarich@lrllp.com - Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP,
Denis S. Kenny - dsk@sfcounsel.com - Scherer & Smith, LLP & Jason
Shelton Lohr - jason.lohr@lrllp.com - Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich
LLP.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Zimmer US,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Biomet Inc., an Indiana Corporation,
Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
company & Biomet Biologics, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
company, Defendants, represented by Eric Meckley -
eric.meckley@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Andrea
Lynn Fellion - andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Jason Phillip Brown- jason.brown@morganlewis.com -
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Joseph Raymond Lewis -
joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Kathryn M. Nazarian , Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, One MarketSpear
Street TowerSan Francisco, CA 94105- 1596
*********
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 2020. 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 ***