/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200114.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 10
Headlines
ABB MOTORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Yoakum Says
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Files Class Action
ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL: Sanchez FLSA Class Suit Terminated
ALIFINE DINING: Palacios Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under FLSA
AURORA CANNABIS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE: Sued by Pappas for Underpaying Insureds
AVON CANADA: Goldblatt Launches Class Action for Retirees
B&G FOODS: Ortega Taco Shells Contain Toxic Trans Fat, Silva Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Arisohn May Represent Simmons as Local Counsel
BAOZUN INC: Faces Snyder Securities Suit Over Drop in ADR Price
BAOZUN INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
BARKMAN HONEY: Defendant Citizenship Report Ordered in Wingate
BAXTER INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Jan. 24 Plaintiff Deadline
BAYER AG: Essure Contraceptive Prompts Class Action in Australia
BAYER AG: Victorian Farmer Leads Class Action Over Roundup
BEAZER HOMES: Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of Class Action
CALIFORNIA: Bernier Files Civil Rights Suit
CALIFORNIA: Savas Files Civil Rights Suit
CANOPY GROWTH: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
CINTAS CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline
CLARENCE NABERS: Patients Seek Class Action Lawsuit vs. Dentist
COLLEGE BOARD: Mark S Sues Over Sale of Students' Personal Info
COLLIER AUTOMOTIVE: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
COMMERCE CREDIT: Thornton Sues Over Demand of Illegal Amounts
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Wins Summary Judgment in Brunett Suit
CREDIT CORP: Obukhobskaya Files FDCPA Suit in New York
CSS CORP: Faces Yarbrough Suit Alleging Race Discrimination
CSWS LLC: Ocean's Club Dancers Class Certified in Rosebar Suit
DEEP SIX: Mahoney Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 4 Ex-Officers Sue for ADA Violations
ELECTROCORE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Kuehl Class Lawsuit
EXELON CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of Feb. 14 Plaintiff Deadline
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Goldman Files FCRA Suit in New York
FIAT CHRYSLER: Gross Law Announces Shareholders' Class Action
FIAT CHRYSLER: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Jan. 31 Plaintiff Deadline
FIAT CHRYSLER: Pawar Law Reminds of Jan. 31 Plaintiff Deadline
FITBIT INC: Faces Phillips Securities Suit Over Alphabet Merger
GENERAL MOTORS: Szep Sues Over Defective Vortec 5300 Engines
GLEN MILLS: Class Action Suit vs. School Survives Dismissal Bid
GLEN MILLS: Pa. District Court Narrows Miller Prisoners Suit Claims
GREEN DOT: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Misclassifies Technicians, Pairan Claims
HERSHEY CO: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Brookside Class Suit
HOME CARE OF DENVER: Class in Pena Suit Conditionally Certified
HUDSON MARKET: To Reduce Lawyer Costs to $27K to Get Approval
INALLIANCE: Settlement Hrg. in Osegueda Suit Continued in January
IZEA WORLDWIDE: Perez Class Action Settlement Wins Court Approval
JAGUAR HEALTH: Still Defends Plant Class Action in California
JEDSON ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wiggins Claims
KEELER INSTRUMENTS: Settlement in Retina Suit Gets Final Court OK
KEMET CORPORATION: Faces Rosenblatt Suit Over Sale to Yageo
LIFELABS LP: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach of 15M Canadians
LIVE NATION: Rosen Law Investigating Securities Claims
LOBLAW COMPANIES: 'Bread' Cartel' Class Suit Given Go-Ahead Signal
MAVERICK TUBE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Parker Claims
MDL 1720: Visa Still Defends Individual Merchant Suits
MDL 2672: Bosch's Class Certification Motion Denied in VW Lawsuit
MDL 2672: Court Allows Redactions in Service of Process Motions
MDL 2672: Court Grants Summary Judgment for Bosch in VW Lawsuit
MDL 2672: Court Rules on Rule 30(B)(6) Topics in Clean Diesel Suit
MDL 2672: District Court Denies Attorney’s Fees for Mahans
MEDLEY LLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Virginia
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: DeSalvo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
MIDWEST COMMUNICATION: Seward Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Summary Judgment Denied in Hill Inmates Suit
MURAD LLC: Conner Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Adeyemi PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Avery PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bundy PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lyon PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Patrick PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Rucker PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Stallworth PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
NET 1 UEPS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
NEW AGE BEVERAGES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW YORK: Court Delays Dissemination of Notice to Guadagna Class
NEWELL BRANDS: Mahoney Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
OBESITY RESEARCH: Weight Loss Supplement Class Gains $4.6M Deal
ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
PARETEUM CORPORATION: Faces Baxley Securities Suit in Alabama
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Certification of Class Sought in Thomas Suit
PAUL J. HOOTEN: Singer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PG&E CORP: Former Paradise Mayor Files Class Action Claim
PNC BANK: Thomas Sues Over TCPA Violation and Privacy Invasion
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Jan. 27 Class Action Deadline Set
PULASKI COUNTY SSD: Richards Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RARE BEAUTY: Slade Suit Alleges ADA Violation
REALREAL INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 24 Deadline
REDNERS MARKETS: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Gabelli Securities Suit in D. Minn.
RICHARD SPENCER: Dismissal Motion in Manker Veterans Suit Denied
SELECT SENIOR: Heidarpour Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
SIERRA INCOME: Awaits Court OK of MCC Settlement, Fee Application
SIERRA INCOME: Still Defends Anderson Class Action in New York
SIERRA INCOME: Still Defends Lax and Dicristino Class Suits in N.Y.
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Rife Sues Over Lousy Crock-Pot Pressure Cookers
TAX RISE: Watkins Sues Over Marketing Texts That Violate TCPA
TEXAS DE BRAZIL: More Info on Agreed Chavez Dismissal Ordered
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Weinreich Class Suit
TRANSUNION LLC: Mileva Files FCRA Suit in California
U.S. STEEL: Clairton Residents Say Proposed Settlement Not Enough
U.S. STEEL: Settles Air Pollution Lawsuit for $8.5 Million
UNDER ARMOUR: Gross Law Announces Shareholders' Class Action
UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF.: Riffel Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Potuto Suit Removed to Neb. Dist. Court
VENUS CONCEPT: Bushansky Drops Merger-Related Suit
VENUS CONCEPT: District Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Suit
VISA INC: Class Status Bid in National ATM Council Lawsuit Pending
VISA INC: Home Depot's Appeals from Court-Approved Pact Underway
VISA INC: In Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class
VISA INC: Nuts for Candy's Class Suit in California Still Stayed
VISA INC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status in Consumer ATM Fee Lawsuits
VISA INC: UK Supreme Court to Hear Merchant Suit Appeal This Month
WAWA INC: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
X FINANCIAL: Gross Law Announces Shareholders' Class Action
YALE ASSOCIATES: $562K Settlement in Noye Suit Gets Final Approval
[*] JND Legal Appoints Stacey Fishbein as VP of Legal Affairs
*********
ABB MOTORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Yoakum Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Yoakum and Brandon Gibbons, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ABB MOTORS AND MECHANICAL,
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00023-KGB (E.D. Ark., Jan. 7, 2020), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiffs overtime compensation for all hours that they worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.
The Defendant scheduled the Plaintiffs to work five and sometimes
six days per workweek at the Clarksville Plant. As a result of the
Defendant's improper rounding practice, the Plaintiffs were not
compensated for all the time they worked, including all of the
overtime hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were hourly-paid employees at Defendant's
manufacturing plant in Clarksville.
The Defendant is a manufacturer of industrial electric motors,
drives and mechanical power transmission products that operates
manufacturing plants throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALI ZAIDI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GREGORY T. WENT, AND
ALFRED G. MERRIWEATHER, Case No. 4:19-cv-08051 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 10,
2019), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly-traded securities of Adamas between August 8, 2017, and
September 30, 2019, inclusive, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Adamas is a commercial stage pharmaceutical company that
specializes in developing drug treatment therapies for chronic
neurologic disorders. The Individual Defendants are officers and
directors of the Company.
Adamas's primary product is GOCOVRI, an extended-release
formulation of amantadine (formerly referred to as ADS-5102), which
has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the
treatment of levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Amantadine is available
as an inexpensive generic drug in multiple instant-release
formulations and is approved for the treatment of dyskinesia.
According to the complaint, after the market closed on March 4,
2019, during Adamas's Q4 2018 conference call with investors,
Adamas walked back its previous prescription growth estimates for
GOCOVRI, warned of a continued slow-down in GOCOVRI prescriptions,
and refused to make further predictions about GOCOVRI's ability to
achieve a sizeable market share.
On this news, Adamas's stock fell $3.99 per share, or 32.84%, to
close at $8.16 per share on March 5, 2019.
On September 30, 2019, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch analyst Tazeen
Ahmad lowered its rating for Adamas shares to "Underperform" noting
"existing overhangs for ADMS: (1) Gocovri coverage: a number of
national formularies exclude Gocovri. We expect reimbursement
hurdles in MSWI space especially with generic Ampyra launch."
On this news, Adamas shares fell a further 42.83% from $7.05 per
share on September 26 to $4.03 by October 3, 2019.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, says
the complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about managed
care's acceptance of GOCOVRI; the breadth of insurer coverage for
GOCOVRI prescriptions; and the impact of the Company's
commercialization efforts.
In addition, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants failed to disclose
that health insurers were excluding GOCOVRI from their prescription
formularies or requiring patients to use "step therapy"--i.e.,
making patients try immediate-release amantadine prior to covering
GOCOVRI; that the rapid increase in physicians prescribing GOCOVRI
during the Class Period was not due to its efficacy; and that the
Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about
Adamas's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members/shareholders have
suffered significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
E-mail: ngoi@fdazar.com
- and -
David Bricker, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
9430 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA
Telephone: (310) 282-8676
E-mail: dbricker@tenlaw.com
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADMS) between
August 8, 2017 and September 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Adamas investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Adamas class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1584.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) health insurers were excluding GOCOVRI from their
prescription formularies or requiring patients to use "step
therapy" - i.e., making patients try immediate-release amantadine
prior to covering GOCOVRI; (2) the rapid increase in physicians
prescribing GOCOVRI during the Class Period was not due to its
efficacy; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements about Adamas's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1584.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Website: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]
ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL: Sanchez FLSA Class Suit Terminated
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GREGORIO SANCHEZ, as an individual, and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00718-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (i) dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiff's individual claims, and (ii) dismissed without prejudice
the Plaintiff's class claims.
On March 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in
the Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-19-100819, alleging
various wage-and-hour claims. The Defendant denies all of the
Plaintiff's claims. On May 22, 2019, the Defendant removed the
case to Federal District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Case No. 1:19-cv-00718-LJO-JLT.
On June 26, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
claims asserted in the Complaint arguing that the claims are
preempted under the Federal Labor Management Relations Act.
On July 10, 2019, the Parties entered into a stipulation to extend
the Plaintiff's deadline to oppose the Defendant's Motion. As part
of the stipulation, the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss his class
allegations without prejudice and pursue his individual claims
only.
On Aug. 16, 2019, the Parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the Plaintiff's individual claims, with prejudice, with a
dismissal of the class claims without prejudice. The parties have
now finalized their settlement.
The Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss his individual claims against
the Defendant, for consideration, with prejudice. No payment is
being made in connection with the settlement as consideration for
the dismissal of the class claims. No notice need be provided to
the putative class, as no class action has been certified, there
have been no published or court-ordered communications with the
class, and no prejudice results from the dismissal of the class
claims.
Based on these facts, the Parties stipulated, and Magistrate Judge
Thurston granted, that (i) the Plaintiff's individual claims are
dismissed with prejudice; and (ii) the Plaintiff's class claims are
dismissed without prejudice.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes such stipulations
effective immediately with further order of the Court. Because all
parties who have appeared in the action signed the stipulation, it
automatically terminated the action. Accordingly, the Clerk of
Court is directed to close the action.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/DOUrBw from Leagle.com.
Gregorio Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine J. Odenbreit
-- kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group, APC & Kevin
Mahoney -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group.
Advanced Industrial Services, Inc., a California corporation,
Defendant, represented by Maria Zoe Stearns -- mstearns@rutan.com
-- Rutan & Tucker, LLP & Peter Hering -- phering@rutan.com -- Rutan
& Tucker LLP.
ALIFINE DINING: Palacios Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Urbina Palacios, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Alifine Dining Inc. d/b/a Nanking, Omsai
Foods Inc. d/b/a Nanking, Tulip NYC Inc. d/b/a Nanking, Akbarali
Himani, Harkesh Yadav, and John Does No. 1-10, Case No.
2:19-cv-06930 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff
and other employees of Defendants are entitled to compensation for
wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages
for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium
pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the amount of pay that Mr. Urbina
Palacios received did not vary based on the precise number of hours
that he worked in a day, week, or month, although he did receive
extra pay when he worked an extra day at the South Ozone Park
location. As a result, Mr. Urbina Palacios's effective rate of pay
was always below the statutory federal and New York minimum wages
in effect at relevant times.
Mr. Palacios was employed by the Nanking Defendants at the New Hyde
Park restaurant from 2008 through May 2017. He left and returned to
work at Melville location in 2018.
The Defendants owned and operated Asian fusion restaurants in New
York and New Jersey under the name Nanking, including ones in
Nassau County located in Melville, New Hyde Park, and South Ozone
Park.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com
AURORA CANNABIS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE:
ACB) investors who purchased securities between September 11, 2019
and November 14, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.
On November 14, 2019, the Company released an earnings report in
which it reported a 24% sequential decline in revenue of C$75.3
versus C$98.9 in the previous quarter. In addition to this decline
in revenue, the Company also announced that plans to finalize
construction of additional grow facilities in both Denmark and
Canada have been delayed.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.56, or nearly 17%,
to close at $2.73 per share on November 15, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Aurora's revenue would decline in its first
quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) that the
Company would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora
Sun facilities; and (3) that as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aurora securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 21, 2020
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
Contact:
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
Web site: www.glancylaw.com
[GN]
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE: Sued by Pappas for Underpaying Insureds
------------------------------------------------------------
George Pappas, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Auto Club Insurance Association, Case No.
2020CH00180 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 7, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for breach of contract and for unjust
enrichment arising from its practice of underpaying its insureds.
The Plaintiff is a customer of ACIA, which issued an insurance
policy to the Plaintiff for private passenger auto insurance
including Comprehensive and Collision Car Damage Coverages for
damage to the Plaintiff's automobile. The Policies require payment
on total loss private passenger auto physical damage claims of
either the "actual cash value" of the damaged vehicle or the
"amount necessary to repair or replace" the damaged vehicle with
another of "like make, model and year." ACV is "determined by the
market value, age and condition at the time the loss occurred."
The Defendant also is responsible to pay title, registration and
license plate fees, and applicable taxes. These fees are part of
ACV and also part of the "amount necessary" to replace the vehicle
because they are mandatory costs involved with the purchase of any
vehicle in Illinois and many other states, and therefore part of
the replacement cost of any vehicle.
When he suffered a total loss of his insured vehicle, however, the
Defendant failed to pay him the full amount to which he was
entitled to receive for his first-party total loss claims under his
ACIA insurance policy, the Plaintiff alleges. More particularly, he
explains, the Defendant failed to pay the full amount of the title,
registration and license plate fees involved with the purchase of a
replacement vehicle.
Simply stated, the Plaintiff avers, the Defendant has
systematically underpaid its insureds, including him and the other
Class members, who have suffered the total loss of their vehicles,
by failing to pay the full costs of mandatory title, registration
and license plate fees, despite being legally obligated to pay such
costs.
As a result, the Defendant has unfairly and unjustly retained
substantial sums that should have been paid to policyholders who
suffered a total loss of their insured vehicles. The Defendant,
thereby, breached its contract with the Plaintiff and other Class
members and was unjustly enriched through its unlawful practice,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and was a citizen and resident of Illinois,
domiciled in Cook County.
ACIA is a leading automobile insurer is licensed to do business and
write automobile insurance in, among others: Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
Patrick J. Solberg, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: 847-368-1500
Fax: 847-368-1501
Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
jberman@andersonwanca.com
psolberg@andersonwanca.com
AVON CANADA: Goldblatt Launches Class Action for Retirees
---------------------------------------------------------
Goldblatt Partners LLP has commenced a class action on behalf of
retirees of Avon Canada Inc. for terminating the post-retirement
benefits they earned over years of employment.
Avon Canada Inc. has announced that, effective January 1, 2020, it
will cease to provide its retirees with post-retirement benefits.
These benefits consist of extended medical coverage and a death
benefit. Avon promised employees over several decades that they
would receive these post-retirement benefits. The promise was made
through written employee booklets, forms and letters.
The retirees of Avon were dedicated employees who worked for years
to earn their post-retirement benefits and who relied on the
promise that the benefits would be available in retirement. The
class action seeks reinstatement of the benefits or damages if the
benefits are not reinstated. The class consists of approximately
600 retirees of Avon Canada Inc.
Jody Brown, a lawyer with Goldblatt Partners, stated:
The retirees in this class action gave their best employment years
to Avon on the explicit promise that Avon would provide
post-retirement benefits. The class members are elderly, on fixed
incomes, and particularly vulnerable to Avon's conduct. This class
action will ensure that promises made in exchange for class
members' years of loyal employment cannot be tossed aside because
those employees are now retired.
For more information, please contact Jody Brown at 416-979-4251 or
jbrown@goldblattpartners.com. [GN]
B&G FOODS: Ortega Taco Shells Contain Toxic Trans Fat, Silva Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Silva and Nancy Schier, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. B&G FOODS, INC. and B&G FOODS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00137 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2020), is
brought to remedy the Defendants' unlawful conduct regarding their
taco shells that contain partially hydrogenated oil.
The Taco Shells included two different varieties sold under the
label of Ortega. PHO is a food additive banned in many parts of the
world due to its artificial trans fat content. Artificial trans fat
is a toxic carcinogen for which there are many safe and
commercially viable substitutes, according to the complaint.
On June 17, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined
that PHO is unsafe for use in food. Yet the Defendants continued to
insert this illegal, dangerous additive into the Trans Fat Tacos,
even after the FDA tentatively, and now finally, declared it unsafe
for use in food, rendering products made with PHO unlawful and
adulterated, the Plaintiffs contend. They argue that the Defendants
falsely marketed and falsely represented Ortega as free of trans
fat when it contained dangerous levels of trans fat.
Although safe, low-cost, and commercially acceptable alternatives
to PHO exist, including those used in competing brands, the
Defendants unfairly elected not to use safe alternatives in Ortega
in order to increase their profits at the expense of the health of
consumers, says the complaint. Additionally, the Defendants
misleadingly marketed Ortega with an unauthorized nutrient content
claim. This misleading and unauthorized claim deceived consumers
into purchasing a product that is harmful to their health, the
Plaintiffs aver.
Plaintiffs Sabrina Silva and Nancy Schier repeatedly purchased and
consumed Ortega during the Class Period.
The Defendants manufactured, marketed, and sold taco shells
containing partially hydrogenated oil.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory S. Weston, ESQ.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 798-2006
Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
Email: greg@westonfirm.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Arisohn May Represent Simmons as Local Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLES SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-478-J-39PDB (M.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division:
(i) granted Joshua Arisohn, Esq., leave to serve as the local
counsel;
(ii) denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice;
(iii) granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint;
and
(iv) denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel call logs without
prejudice.
Scott Bursor, Esq., sought leave for Joshua Arisohn, Esq., to
specially appear to represent the Plaintiff, with Mr. Bursor
serving as the local counsel. Based on the absence of opposition
from the Defendant, the information provided by Mr. Bursor, and Mr.
Arisohn's payment of the required fee, Judge Barksdale granted the
request. Mr. Arisohn may specially appear to represent the
Plaintiff, with Mr. Bursor serving as the local counsel. If he has
not done so already, Mr. Arisohn must expeditiously register with
the electronic case filing (ECF) system by completing the E-Filer
Registration Form.
The Judge and counsel discussed the motion to dismiss the complaint
for lack of standing. The Counsel agreed the motion and the
response -- which disputes factual contentions -- together present
an issue pertinent to the merits of the causes of action. Without
objection, and based on law provided in the response, the Judge
denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Based on the Court's observation that the complaint is a "shotgun"
pleading, the Plaintiff's counsel moved for leave to file an
amended complaint to correct that problem and to add factual
allegations learned during discovery (for example, dates and
times). Applying the liberal amendment standard in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and discerning no reason to do otherwise
(e.g., futility, delay, or prejudice), the Judge granted the motion
and directed the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that
corrects the shotgun problem and adds new factual allegations but
adds no new cause of action.
In light of the issue raised in the motion to dismiss and in the
interests of a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution, Judge
Barksdale suggested, and the counsel agreed to, bifurcate case
management and scheduling (individual matters first; class matters
second, if the individual claims survive). Without objection, the
Judge waived the 90-day period for moving for class certification
under Local Rule 4.04(b) and vacated the dates in the case
management and scheduling order, with all other directives in the
case management and scheduling order remaining in place. An
amended case management and scheduling order will be entered
separately.
Without objection and in light of bifurcation, the Judge denied the
Plaintiff's motion to compel call logs without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NF4txM from Leagle.com.
Charles Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Arisohn --
jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, PA, pro hac vice & Scott A.
Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, PA.
Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allen Paige
Pegg -- allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Paige
Spencer Comparato -- paige.comparato@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.
BAOZUN INC: Faces Snyder Securities Suit Over Drop in ADR Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY SNYDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BAOZUN INC., VINCENT WENBIN QIU and ROBIN BIN LU, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11290 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2019), is brought on behalf
of all purchasers of Baozun American Depository Receipts between
March 6, 2019, and November 20, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
Unbeknownst to investors, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. was one of
Baozun Inc.'s largest brand partners, on a historical basis, the
lawsuit says. Huawei paid more add-on fees for the work Baozun did
for it, increasing the revenues Baozun received for Huawei work
compared to the company's other brand partners. This caused Baozun
to report outsized revenue growth during the first half of 2019,
which would be abruptly cut off during the second half 2019, after
Baozun restructured the relationship as Huawei took much of its
online merchandizing in-house.
As a result, the market was shocked on November 21, 2019, when
Baozun announced third quarter ("3Q19") financial results that came
in lower than the market had been led to expect and provided dismal
fourth quarter 2019 ("4Q19") financial guidance, blaming, in large
part, the adverse "impact from terminating our service agreement
with one electronics brand." Though Baozun did not disclose who
that large "electronics brand" was itself, many in the financial
media have suggested that it was Huawei, the lawsuit says.
On this news, the market price of Boazun ADRs plummeted, declining
by $7.60 each, or approximately 17.5%, to close down at $35.90 each
on November 21, 2019, on unusually high trading volume of more than
8.2 million shares trading, more than eight times the average daily
volume over the preceding ten trading days.
According to the complaint, with the market price of Baozun ADRs
artificially inflated, Baozun cashed in, selling at least 2.25
million ADRs in a registered public stock offering at $40 each on
April 10, 2019 (the "ADR Offering"), raising $90 million through
underwriters Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc. (the "Underwriters"), and "loaning" to be sold by
those same Underwriters another 1.98 million ADRs.
Baozun also closed on April 10 a concurrent offering of $225
million in aggregate principal amount of convertible senior notes
due 2024 (the "Notes"), and the sale of an additional $50 million
in aggregate principal amount of the Notes pursuant to the exercise
by the initial purchasers in full of an option to purchase
additional Notes, pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (collectively, the "Notes
Offering"), receiving net proceeds from the Notes Offering of
approximately $269 million.
The Plaintiff contends that he and the Class have suffered damages
in that, in reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid
artificially inflated prices for Baozun ADRs. The Plaintiff also
asserts that he and the class would not have purchased Baozun ADRs
at the prices they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the
market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by the
Defendants' misleading statements.
Huawei is a Shenzhen, Chinese-based multinational technology
company that provides telecommunications equipment and sells
consumer electronics, including smartphones.
Baozun provides brand e-commerce services to brand partners in the
People's Republic of China. The company offers end-to-end
e-commerce services, including IT infrastructure setup and
integration, sale of apparel, home and electronic products, online
store design and setup, visual merchandising and marketing, online
store operations, customer services, warehousing, and order
fulfillment, that helps companies sell their branded goods online.
The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 S. Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631 367-7100
Facsimile: 631 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212/239-1550
E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
BAOZUN INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Baozun Inc.
(NASDAQ:BZUN) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 6,
2019 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 10, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. One of Baozun's largest brand partners,
Huawei, paid it add-on fees other partners did typically not pay,
increasing the Company's revenues. This arrangement boosted the
Company's revenues in the first half of 2019, only to abruptly drop
them as Huawei restructured its online merchandising in the second
half of the year. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Baozun,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
Brian Schall, Esq.,
The Schall Law Firm
Website: www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]
BARKMAN HONEY: Defendant Citizenship Report Ordered in Wingate
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID WINGATE, Plaintiff, v. BARKMAN HONEY,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-4074-HLT (D. Kan.), Magistrate
Judge James P. O'Hara of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas ordered the parties to file a joint report, with
affidavits, demonstrating the citizenship of each Defendant last
Nov. 12, 2019.
The Plaintiff filed the consumer-fraud case on behalf of a putative
plaintiff class against Barkman Honey and Truesource Honey, LLC.
The complaint alleges the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) and the Class Action Fairness
Act because there is minimal diversity among the parties. However,
it fails to allege facts sufficient to allow the Court to confirm
whether diversity of citizenship exists.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Illinois. The complaint
indicates Defendant Barkman Honey is a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in Kansas, and that Truesource
Honey is a foreign corporation with its principal offices located
in Washington, D.C.
As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge O'Hara finds it inconsistent
that the Plaintiff refers to the two Defendants as "corporations,"
when all parties seem to agree they are unincorporated LLCs.
Second, citizenship of each Defendant LLC is determined by the
citizenship of each one of its members. Because the complaint is
silent as to the identity and citizenship of the Defendants'
individual members, it fails to establish citizenship for
diversity-jurisdiction purposes.
Magistrate Judge O'Hara thus ordered the parties to file a joint
report, with affidavits, demonstrating the citizenship of each
Defendant. The report was due in November 2019.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6xCFXA from Leagle.com.
Dave Wingate, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kent A. Heitzinger --
heitzinger.law@gmail.com -- The Law Offices of Kent A. Heitzinger,
pro hac vice, Terrence Buehler -- tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com -- The
Law Office of Terrence Buehler, pro hac vice & James Phillip
Gragson -- jpgragson@hhmglaw.com -- Henson, Hutton, Mudrick,
Gragson & Vogelsberg, LLP.
Barkman Honey, LLC, a Domestic Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Zach Chaffee-McClure -- zmcclure@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon
LLP.
Truesource Honey, LLC, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Elisabeth Kidder -- dg@depewgillen.com -- Watkinson
Miller PLLC, Randall K. Rathbun -- randy@depewgillen.com -- Depew
Gillen Rathbun & McInteer, LC & Richard T. Rossier, Watkinson
Miller PLLC, pro hac vice.
BAXTER INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Jan. 24 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Baxter
International Inc. (BAX). Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Baxter International Inc. (BAX)
BAX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 21,
2019 - October 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 24, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baxter-international-inc-loss-form?prid=4961&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baxter
International Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain
intra-Company transactions, undertaken for the purpose of
generating foreign exchange gains and losses, used foreign exchange
rate conventions that were not in accordance with GAAP and enabled
intra-Company transactions to be undertaken after the related
exchange rates were already known; (2) the Company lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a result, the
Company's financial statements were misstated and would likely
require correction or amendment; (4) due to the Company's internal
investigation, Baxter would not be able to file its quarterly
report for the period ending September 30, 2019, with the SEC on
Form 10-Q in a timely manner; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business and operations
lacked a reasonable basis.
BAX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baxter-international-inc-loss-form?prid=4961&wire=1
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
BAYER AG: Essure Contraceptive Prompts Class Action in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Schelle, writing for Yahoo! News, reports that a
contraceptive device that allegedly left women in severe pain has
led to a class action being launched in Victoria's Supreme Court.
Law firm Slater and Gordon claims the Essure device sold by Bayer
left women in severe pain and damaged their health.
It also claims the company failed to warn women of the risks
associated with the product.
The firm filed a statement of claim with the Victorian Supreme
Court on December 20, the first step in the court process.
"In bringing this case on behalf of these women, we are saying to
the manufacturers of this device that putting a medical device out
into the market that causes significant health problems is wholly
unacceptable," senior associate Ebony Birchall said on December
20.
The permanent implant was made of a metal coil, which expanded and
anchored the device in the fallopian tube to cause scarring to
block the tube.
Bayer sold the product from 2000 before pulling it in 2018.
"Essure was marketed as fast, effective, and minimally invasive, in
that could be inserted in your doctor's office. This so-called
convenience came at a very significant cost to the patient, and
their health," Ms. Birchall said.
"The women who had Essure implanted had every right to expect the
product was safe."
The contraceptive device has been associated with serious injury
caused by chronic inflammator conditions, according to the class
action.
The device could also have migrated and perforated the uterus and
other organs.
Slater and Gordon said other complications linked to the device
include chronic pain, irregular and painful bleeding and pelvic
inflammation. [GN]
BAYER AG: Victorian Farmer Leads Class Action Over Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Houston, writing for The Age, reports that a former
Victorian farmer will lead a major class action against German
pharmaceutical giant Bayer over claims that long-term exposure to
the popular weedkiller Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Nando Maisano, 77, also accuses Bayer, and the original
manufacturer Monsanto, of repeatedly ignoring and concealing
evidence of the carcinogenic impact of glyphosate -- the active
component in its top-selling herbicide, in a Supreme Court of
Victoria writ lodged on December 10.
"Monsanto and Bayer are in possession of a substantial body of
internal and external studies, laboratory test results, documents,
reports, surveys and correspondence evidencing its knowledge of the
inherent dangers of the use and exposure to its Roundup products,"
the writ claims.
Mr. Maisano owned farms in Lower Crawford, Carngham and
Clarkefield, where he used Roundup since 1976 to rid his properties
of thistle, build fire-breaks and remove weeds from his vegetable
garden.
"One day, a stock and land agent was driving past and asked why I
was removing thistle with a mattock. He said there's this magic
spray that will get rid of them straight away," Mr. Maisano told
The Age.
He would occasionally wear gloves or a paper mask, but recalls
being drenched in the herbicide that was once promoted by Monsanto
as "safer than table salt".
He says he was never told to take any precautions because everyone
thought it was safe.
The father-of-four was forced to sell his Clarkefield farm when
diagnosed with non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in 1997, but continued to use
Roundup around his Melbourne home until 2018.
Mr. Maisano will be lead plaintiff in the class action, which
already includes about 100 other litigants all diagnosed with
non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Carbone Lawyer partner John Karantzis said his client suffered
permanent medical and psychological conditions.
"We have strong medical and scientific evidence to support claims
this is a deadly product," Mr. Karantzis said. "This class action
has been issued to protect the rights and interests of all of those
affected. We say this is a dangerous and illicit product, and we
look forward to our day in court."
However, Bayer spokesman Lachlan Bird said the company stood behind
the safety of its products and would vigorously defend the claim in
court.
"Bayer is a company devoted to life sciences. The health and
well-being of our consumers and the environment are critically
important to us," Mr. Bird said. "We are aware that a statement of
claim against Monsanto Australia Pty Ltd, a Bayer-owned entity, has
been filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, but we have not
received a writ at this time."
Glyphosate was developed in the early 1970s by US Agribusiness
Monsanto, which was purchased last year by Bayer for $US63 billion
($91 billion).
While some local councils have banned the use of glyphosate
products, a recent review by the Victorian environment department
approved their use on public land providing proper safety protocols
were followed.
Australian farmers and the peak bodies that represent them have
also defended the use of glyphosate-based herbicides, which they
claim have dramatically reduced diesel use on farms.
A recent media release by the National Farmers' Federation rejected
any link to cancer.
"The United States' National Institute of Agriculture followed
57,000 farmers and registered applicators of glyphosate for more
than 20 years. The study found no connection between cancer and
glyphosate".
However, Bayer faces a tsunami of litigation in the United States,
where more than 42,000 plaintiffs have joined proceedings across
several jurisdictions.
US courts have already ordered Bayer to pay damages to three
plaintiffs, including $US289 million ($420 million) to a former
school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, after a Californian jury
found that Roundup caused his cancer.
A separate lawsuit in the US Federal Court saw $US80 million
awarded to a residential user of the herbicide in early 2019.
And in May, a Californian couple was awarded $US2 billion after a
jury found their non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was caused by years of
exposure to Roundup.
Bayer has appealed the decision involving Mr. Johnson and has
indicated it will challenge the other two.
But the trials have uncovered internal communications that appear
to show Monsanto staff attempting to influence scientific papers or
interfere with research that raised concerns about the safety of
its products.
Australian regulators have not responded to successive court
victories in the US.
"The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
(APVMA) considered the evidence presented in the Californian case
and found no grounds to take regulatory action in Australia," the
regulator announced in October 2018, following publicity
surrounding the landmark Dewayne Johnson decision.
"There is a lot of information out there, and discussion in the
media does not always get the facts or the science right."
The regulator had already rejected a 2015 finding by the World
Health Organisation that glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to
humans."
However, countries including Germany, Austria, France and Thailand
are all set to ban, or dramatically curb the use of the herbicide.
[GN]
BEAZER HOMES: Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit against Beazer Homes
USA, Inc. related to these inventory impairment charges have filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal and the Court has subsequently
entered an order dismissing the case, according to Beazer Homes
USA's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019.
The Company said, "During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, we
recognized inventory impairment charges related to 15 communities
in California, all of which were previously land held for future
development assets. Related to these inventory impairment charges,
on June 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. and certain of our officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The proposed
class consisted of all persons and entities that acquired our
securities between August 1, 2014 and May 2, 2019."
On October 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of this case, and the Court subsequently entered an order
dismissing the case.
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., incorporated on November 24, 1993, is a
geographically diversified homebuilder. The Company markets and
sells its products through its Website, www.beazer.com; mobile
site, m.beazer.com; real estate listing sites, online advertising,
including search engine marketing and display advertising, social
media, video, brochures, direct marketing and out-of-home
advertising, including billboards and signage, as well as other
activities. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
CALIFORNIA: Bernier Files Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Department
of Insurance. The case is styled as Rejeanne M. Bernier and Hans S.
Croteau as individuals, and as members of a similarly situated
class, Plaintiffs v. California Department of Insurance, Ricardo
Lara in his capacity as California Insurance Commissioner and Does
1 Through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-GPC-KSC
(S.D., Cal., Jan. 7, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed for the Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection.
The California Department of Insurance, established in 1868, is the
agency charged with overseeing insurance regulations, enforcing
statutes mandating consumer protections, educating consumers, and
fostering the stability of insurance markets in California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.
CALIFORNIA: Savas Files Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California State Law
Enforcement Agency, et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Savas,
Lauren Ashby, Ethan Balter, Bella Bardeen, Paul Carey, Christian
Espinoza, Carter Fenley, Alec Fletes, Moses Haase, Frank Harwood,
Jon Hernandez, Cole Heydorff, Jess Hiller, Mackenzie Koepsell,
Jennifer Marshall, Andres Medonza, Kent Mertins, Yuruan Quinones,
Joshua Raymond, Brad Rollins, Tristan Traub, Adam Wright, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. California State Law Enforcement Agency, a labor
organization, Betty Yee in her official capacity as State
Controller of California, Xavier Becerra in his official capacity
as Attorney General of California, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00032-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
California State Law Enforcement Agency is an organizational unit
of the federal government of California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rebekah Christine Millard, Esq.
Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
Phone: (360) 956-3482 x1502
Email: rmillard@freedomfoundation.com
CANOPY GROWTH: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Canopy Growth Corporation (NYSE: CGC) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under
19-cv-11341, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Canopy securities between September
8, 2017 and November 13, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Canopy securities during the
class period, you have until January 20, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
Canopy operates through two segments—Cannabis Operations and
Canopy Rivers. The Company's products include dried flowers, oils
and concentrates, softgel capsules, and hemps. It offers its
products under the Tweed, Spectrum, DNA Genetics, CraftGrow, Tokyo
Smoke, DOJA, Van der Pop, and Maitri brands. The Company also
provides growth capital and a strategic support platform that
pursues investment opportunities in the global cannabis sector.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canopy had exaggerated and/or
overestimated the potential market for its products in Canadian
retail stores; (ii) as a result, Canopy had failed to properly
account for inventory and demand for its products, leading to
inventory write-offs and restructuring charges; (iii) all of the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on the Company's financial results; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On November 14, 2019, Canopy announced its financial results for
the second quarter of fiscal year 2020, which ended on September
30, 2019 (the "2Q20 Press Release"). Among other results, the 2Q20
Press Release reported revenue that fell below the lowest analyst
estimate and an EBITDA loss of C$155.7 million, which one analyst
described as "astounding." The 2Q20 Press Release further advised
investors that it was unlikely to meet its previous revenue
guidance of C$250 million by the fiscal fourth quarter. As
explained by Canopy's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Mark Zekulin
("Zekulin"), "provinces have reduced purchases to lower inventory
levels, retail store openings have fallen short of expectations,
and Cannabis 2.0 products are yet to come to market." The 2Q20
Press Release further advised that, "[a]s part of a
management-initiated portfolio review, the Company has taken a
restructuring charge of $32.7 million for returns, return
provisions, and pricing allowances primarily related to its softgel
& oil portfolio"; "recorded an inventory charge of $15.9 million to
align the portfolio with the new strategy"; and that "[t]he Q2 2020
gross margin impact of the portfolio restructuring costs is $40.4
million."
On this news, Canopy's stock price fell $2.66 per share, or 14.38%,
to close at $15.84 per share on November 14, 2019.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
Contact:
Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]
CINTAS CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Cintas Corporation (NASDAQ: CTAS)
between March 6, 2017 and November 13, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important February 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Cintas investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Cintas class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1721.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cintas never tracked legacy margins following the G&K
acquisition; (2) Cintas has systematically provided guidance with
which it would outperform (a "Beat and Raise" scheme); (3)
undisclosed to the investing public, Cintas has breached the law
multiple times; (4) as a result of publicly known and undisclosed
breaches of law, the Company's Credit Agreement may be jeopardized;
and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1721.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]
CLARENCE NABERS: Patients Seek Class Action Lawsuit vs. Dentist
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Dorman, writing for the Knox News, reports that three
patients of Knoxville dentist Clarence "Buzz" Nabers have filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit against his practice for potentially
exposing thousands of people to infectious diseases by reusing and
improperly sterilizing dental tools.
Gerald Witt, an investigator for the Knox County Public Defender's
Office, filed the lawsuit in Knox County Circuit Court on Thursday.
Two other patients, identified only by their initials, also are
listed as plaintiffs.
The proposed class would include some 8,000 patients treated at
Nabers' dental practice from Sept. 15, 2016, to Sept. 15, 2019. The
Tennessee Department of Health directed Nabers to mail a letter to
each of those patients and recommended they be tested for HIV,
hepatitis B and hepatitis C due to his questionable sterilization
techniques over a four-month span in 2018.
"The members of the proposed class each suffered extreme and
serious emotional distress and trauma, and will incur medical
testing and other expenses as the result of the negligent conduct
of Buzz Nabers Dental Studio," reads the class-action complaint
This summer, the Tennessee Board of Dentistry slapped Nabers with
an $11,000 fine and placed his license on probation for two years
after an investigation uncovered the sterilization violations. The
state found Nabers' practice was reusing disposable drill pieces
and wiping down dental tools instead of properly sanitizing them.
Dental chairs also were not sanitized between patients, and the
practice's sterilization machines were not tested to make sure they
were working as intended.
The investigation further concluded Nabers forged certification
documents and had assistants perform work outside their
professional scope — such as filling cavities and placing
permanent crowns - while he was short a dentist.
Tennessee Department of Health spokeswoman Shelley Walker said the
state sent Nabers a letter on Sept. 17, telling him to notify all
patients seen in a three-year window of the state's recommendation
they be tested for diseases.
Nabers - who has offices on South Gay Street in downtown Knoxville
and Thunderhead Road in southwest Knox County - was told to notify
patients within 60 days, Walker said.
Patients began receiving letters as early as Dec. 11, 85 days after
the state order was sent. Nabers told Knox News the final letters
would be put in the mail by the end of this week.
The letters, unsigned and printed on plain paper without letter
head, advise a "very remote possibility" of exposure, state there
haven't been reports of infection and include details about how to
make an appointment "if you would like to be tested" for HIV and
the hepatitis viruses.
The proposed class-action lawsuit seeks $50 million from Nabers,
his practice and his wife, Trish. The plaintiffs are being
represented by Knoxville attorneys Troy Bowlin and Mark Stephens,
who served as Knox County's public defender for 29 years and
stepped down at the end of October to return to private practice.
It will be up to a judge to decide whether to certify the class.
Nabers also faces a separate lawsuit from a former dental hygienist
in his office who said she refused his orders to violate state
dentistry rules by performing certain procedures in his absence,
lodged a complaint that kicked off the state investigation in July
2018 and then cooperated with the probe until she was forced out
that December. [GN]
COLLEGE BOARD: Mark S Sues Over Sale of Students' Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK S., on behalf of himself and as parent and guardian of his
minor child, A.S., and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. COLLEGE BOARD, Case No. 1:19-cv-08068 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 10, 2019), arises from the Defendant's collection of students'
personal information through the use of unfair and deceptive
practices.
Mr. S. contends that the Defendant's deceptive practices include
misrepresenting that it did not sell the information, falsely
claiming that the personal information would "guide your counselors
in helping you plan your future," and preying on students' hopes
and fears by making it appear that providing the information could
assist with college acceptance and financial aid while not
providing the information would be detrimental to those goals--when
in fact, neither scenario was true.
As Defendant College Board has admitted, whether a student provided
the information did not impact his chance of being accepted into
colleges or scholarship programs in any way, says the complaint.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of students in Illinois and
millions of students across the United States take one or more
standardized tests provided by Defendant College Board--including,
the SAT, PSAT/NMSQT, PSAT 10, PSAT 8/9 and Advanced Placement Exams
("AP Exams") (collectively, the "Standardized Tests"). While
students were made to believe the results of these tests would
significantly impact their futures, to Defendant College Board the
tests served a wholly different purpose -- i.e., to obtain highly
valuable personal student information.
The Plaintiff says he retains a significant interest in ensuring
that his minor child's personal information, which remains in
Defendant College Board's possession, is protected from further
unlawful sales and use, and he seeks to remedy the harms suffered
as a result of College Board's improper conduct for himself and on
behalf of similarly situated persons whose personal information was
improperly used.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, seeks to recover damages, including
statutory and punitive damages; equitable relief, including
injunctive relief designed to prevent Defendant College Board from
selling students' personal information and the resulting injuries
and to require College Board to recover all of the personal
information and school student records it has unlawfully and
improperly sold, released, transferred, disclosed and disseminated;
restitution; disgorgement; reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
expenses; and all other remedies the Court deems proper.
The Plaintiff is the parent and legal guardian of the minor child
A.S., who was under the age of 16 and attended a school within the
Chicago Public School District in Illinois. Between October 2018
and October 2019, A.S. registered for and took various standardized
tests offered by College Board, including the PSAT/NMSQT, multiple
AP Exams and the PSAT 9. A.S. took the tests in Illinois.
College Board is a not-for-profit membership association chartered
in the State of New York with a principal place of business in New
York and its Midwest regional office in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott R. Drury, Esq.
Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL
Telephone: 312 243-5900
E-mail: mike@loevy.com
drury@loevy.com
COLLIER AUTOMOTIVE: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NELSON and JOSEPH ORLANDO, for themselves and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. COLLIER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, dba COLLIER GOODYEAR CAR CARE CENTER;
SOUTHERN FLORIDA CAR CARE INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, dba
COLLIER GOODYEAR CAR CARE CENTER, as successor in interest to
COLLIER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; and ROBERT D. LLEWELLYN JR.,
Individually, Case No. 2:19-cv-00874 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs resulting from the Defendants' violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that they worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours within a workweek from at least December 2012, through
July 2019, but the Defendants failed to compensate them at a rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were paid only a flag
rate, with no premium for their overtime hours. The Plaintiffs' job
duties were to clean vehicles according to company standards or
client specifications, which may include performing detail
inspections, thoroughly washing, buffing, and waxing exteriors,
vacuuming, steaming, and deodorizing interiors, and keeping records
related to gas levels and the condition of the vehicle.
CAG, owned and operated by Robert Llewellyn, was founded in 2010.
The company's line of business includes general automotive
repair.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: 954-318-0268
Facsimile: 954-327-3016
E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com
COMMERCE CREDIT: Thornton Sues Over Demand of Illegal Amounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART THORNTON, On his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. COMMERCE CREDIT SERVICES INC. D/B/A NATIONAL
LIEN AND RECOVERY, Case No. 1:19-cv-03522-BPG (D. Md., Dec. 10,
2019), arises from the Defendant's demanding of illegal amounts in
its "Notices of Sale of Motor Vehicle to Satisfy Liens" in
connection with a mechanics lien on consumers' vehicles.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's vehicle was
overheating, and on October 19, 2018, he took the vehicle to Al
Packer's White Marsh Ford ("Al Packer's") for investigation and
repairs. A representative of Al Packer falsely told the Plaintiff
that he had a warranty, which would cover the repairs. Based on
this misrepresentation, the Plaintiff consented to the tear down of
the vehicle.
After Al Packer performed the tear down, it told the Plaintiff that
the warranty did not cover him, and on October 22, 2018, Al Packer
demanded $1,845.30 for the tear down. When the Plaintiff was not
able to pay this amount in the time demanded by Al Packer, Al
Packer hired National Lien to collect money from the Plaintiff or
to auction the vehicle pursuant to a mechanic's lien, the lawsuit
says.
On December 17, 2018, National Lien sent Plaintiff a "Notice of
Sale of Motor Vehicle to Satisfy Lien." The notice demanded "full
payment" of $3,840.30, and stated:
"You have the right, within Ten [sic] of receipt of this notice, to
satisfy in full all of the above mentioned costs by contracting
[sic] NATIONAL LIEN & RECOVERY. Full payment must be received in
cash or certified funds only. In the event you do not satisfy the
above lien within the given time period, NATIONAL LIEN & RECOVERY
WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION the above mentioned vessel on the 9 day
of January XX 2019."
National Lien demanded $3,840.30 to "satisfy the above lien"
despite that the cost of repair was only $1,845.30. Its demand for
$3,840.30 to satisfy the lien included "Amount of lien for repair
and/or storage together with costs of the sale."
Mr. Thornton avers that Maryland law limits liens on motor vehicles
to charges incurred with the consent of the owner, for repair or
rebuilding, storage, or tires or other parts or accessories. He
alleges that National Lien produced no evidence that he consented
to storage charges. Even if he had consented to storage, National
Lien demanded an amount to satisfy the lien that included "costs of
said sale" despite that Maryland law does not allow for the charge,
he adds.
On December 20 and 27, 2019, National Lien advertised the auction
of the vehicle in the newspaper stating that the minimum bid was
"$3840.30." Despite this, it sold the vehicle to Al Packer on
January 9, 2019, for one dollar.
The Plaintiff contends that he and the Class suffered damages as a
direct result of the Defendant's illegal actions, in that they were
either forced to pay amounts not owed, or lost their vehicles as a
result of failure to pay amounts not owed.
The Plaintiff asserts that it is the pattern and practice of
National Lien to demand payment for "liens" in excess of those
amounts allowed by law, and based on public filings of the
Defendant, and the form documents it uses, in the last year, it has
done this to at least 30 people. Unless and until this Court grants
the declaratory and injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek through
the action, National Lien will continue to charge consumers illegal
amounts, causing harm to consumers, the Plaintiff adds.
National Lien is a Maryland corporation regularly conducting
business as a lien and recovery corporation, and auctioneer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jane Santoni, Esq.
SANTONI, VOCCI & ORTEGA, LLC
401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: 443-921-8161
Facsimile: 410-525-5704
E-mail: jsantoni@svolaw.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Wins Summary Judgment in Brunett Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DARLENE BRUNETT, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-C-0168 (E.D. Wis.), Judge
Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin (i) denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, (ii) granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file supplemental authority, and (iii) granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.
Brunett filed the putative class action against Convergent,
alleging that a collection letter it sent her contained language
that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
Brunett incurred a debt of 1,012.13 owed to Comenity Bank, related
to her PayPal account. She failed to pay the balance of her
account and Comenity Bank placed the account with Defendant
Convergent for collection. Convergent set a collection letter to
Brunett.
If Brunett had accepted the offer offered in the letter, she would
have paid $506.07 to Convergent, and Convergent would have
discharged the remaining $506.06. Since that amount is less than
$600, the IRS reporting requirement would not have been triggered.
After receiving the letter, Brunett called Convergent and stated
that she was unable to pay the $506.07 to resolve the account,
instead offering to make monthly payments of $5.
The Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was confused by
the inclusion of the IRS notice in the collection letter, and was
unsure under what conditions it would apply to her. She alleges
that the inclusion of such a notice might cause a recipient of such
a letter to pay the entire debt to avoid trouble with the IRS, thus
foregoing various options and protections available to debtors.
Pending before the Court are the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Brunett's proposed class consists of 2,666 residents of Wisconsin,
Indiana, and Illinois who were the collection letters sent to those
residents listed (a) an amount owed that was less than $600, or (b)
listed a proposed discharge of indebtedness that was for less than
$600. Brunett moves that she be appointed the class representative
and that her counsel, James Vlahakis, be appointed the class
counsel.
Judge Adelman finds that the Plaintiff fails to meet both the
typicality and the commonality prerequisites to class
certification. The IRS notice at issue was misleading on its face
in the case of putative class members whose total debt was less
than $600, and only plausibly misleading in the case of those whose
debt exceeded $600. This distinction is salient to Rule 23(a)(3)'s
typicality analysis. Whether a statement in a collection letter is
misleading on its face or only plausibly misleading is an
"essential characteristic of the claim," as a Plaintiff seeking to
recover on the basis of a plausibly misleading statement must
produce evidence that the statement was, in fact, misleading.
Thus, Brunett's claim is not typical of the claims of those
putative class members whose total debt was less than $600, and she
cannot represent them in the action.
There remain those putative class members whose total debts, like
Brunett's, exceeded $600 when they received Convergent's letter.
Brunett's claim is typical of these class members' claims, but her
motion for class certification nevertheless fails because she has
not shown that she will adequately represent these class members'
interests. Because she has not provided and appears unwilling to
provide evidence of an essential element of her claim, Brunett has
not shown that she will adequately protect the interests of the
proposed class.
For these reasons, the Judge will deny Brunett's motion for class
certification.
There remains Convergent's motion for summary judgment on Brunett's
individual claims. The Judge holds that Brunett's claim fails as a
matter of law for the same reason that she failed to establish her
adequacy as a class representative: she has not presented extrinsic
evidence that might convince a trier of fact of the notice's
misleading nature. It's quite plausible that the notice in the
letter in the case is misleading to the unsophisticated debtor; for
example, the unsophisticated debtor might not know whether the term
"discharge" applies to the entire amount of a resolved debt or only
that portion waived by the creditor. But that is a jury question,
and the jury needs extrinsic evidence on which to base its
determination. Because the Plaintiff has not presented such
evidence, she cannot survive the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Adelman (i) denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification; (ii) granted the Plaintiff's motion
for leave to file supplemental authority; and (iii) granted the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/MDF0UN from Leagle.com.
Darlene Brunett, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad T. Sulaiman,
Sulaiman Law Group Ltd, Mohammed O. Badwan, Sulaiman Law Group Ltd,
Nathan C. Volheim, Sulaiman Law Group Ltd, Omar T. Sulaiman,
Sulaiman Law Group Ltd & James C. Vlahakis --
jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com -- Sulaiman Law Group Ltd.
Convergent Outsourcing Inc, Defendant, represented by Lindsey AL
Conley -- lconley@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Nabil G. Foster -- nfoster@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.
CREDIT CORP: Obukhobskaya Files FDCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Iryna Obukhobskaya, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Corp
Solutions Inc., doing business as: Tasman Credit, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00075 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Credit Corp Solutions is a receivables management company that
purchases and collects consumer debt including unpaid retail
finance and sales finance credit cards and personal loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
CSS CORP: Faces Yarbrough Suit Alleging Race Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA YARBROUGH, and MATT LOFLAND, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated v. CSS CORP., and GLOW NETWORKS, INC.,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00905 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 10, 2019), seeks to redress
alleged race discrimination and retaliation for reporting and
opposing race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section
1981.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent African American employees of the
Defendants, who have been subjected to one or more aspects of the
systemic race discrimination, including discriminatory policies,
practices and procedures in selection, promotion and advancement;
disparate pay; differential treatment; and racial hostility in the
workplace.
The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief; back pay; front
pay; compensatory, nominal and punitive damages; and attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses to redress the Defendants' pervasive and
discriminatory employment policies, practices and procedures.
CSS Corp is an IT services and premium tech support solutions
company.
Glow Networks, Inc. was founded in 2010. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of wire telephone and telegraph
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Sanford, Esq.
David Norris, Esq.
THE SANFORD FIRM
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 15400
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 717-6653
Facsimile: (214) 919-0113
E-mail: bsanford@sanfordfirm.com
dnorris@sanfordfirm.com
CSWS LLC: Ocean's Club Dancers Class Certified in Rosebar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JAMISHA ROSEBAR, et al., individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. CSWS, LLC d/b/a OCEAN'S
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DEBORAH DIAZ, and SEIF EL SHARIF, Case No.
1:18-cv-07081 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Virginia M. Kendall grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The action is conditionally certified as an FLSA Collective action
on behalf of these putative members of the Collective:
All current and former dancers/entertainers who worked or
have worked at Ocean Gentlemen's Club in Bedford Park,
Illinois at any time from October 22, 2015 to the Present.
The Defendants are directed to identify all putative members of the
proposed Collective by providing their names, last known addresses,
e-mail addresses, telephone numbers (including mobile), dates of
birth and dates of employment, in an electronic and importable
format, such as an unrestricted Excel spreadsheet within 14 days of
the entry of this Order.
The Court approves the Plaintiffs' proposed "Notice of Right to
Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" form and the
Plaintiffs' proposed language for notice via text message to be
sent to the putative Collective members. The Plaintiffs' Counsel
are authorized to disseminate the approved notice documents and
language to the putative members of the Collective via U.S. mail,
e-mail, and text message, and to send a reminder notice by the same
methods halfway through the notice period.
The putative members of the Collective are allowed 60 days from the
date the notice is mailed to join this case by returning their
written consent forms if they so choose.
On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs Jamisha Rosebar, Breona Smith, Kenya
Williams-Mix, Adrieana Powell, Shalayla Liddell, Jada Adams,
Princess Wellington, and Laqueshia Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Consolidated
Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendants CSWS, LLC
d/b/a Ocean's Gentlemen's Club, Deborah Diaz, and Seif El Sharif
seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (IWPCA), and alternatively through common law unjust
enrichment.
The Court has granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the IWPCA
and unjust enrichment claims but allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed
with their claims under the FLSA and IMWL.[CC]
DEEP SIX: Mahoney Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Deep Six LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Deep Six LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00115-MSG
(E.D. Pa., Jan. 7, 2020).
Deep Six is an online CBD shop selling with store locations in
Philadelphia, PA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg
Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, brings this action for injunctive relief
on behalf of a nationwide class of dentists in the Delta Dental
provider network, damages on behalf of a California class of dental
service providers, against the Delta Dental Plans Association and
its subsidiary Delta USA and 39 independent Delta Dental companies
for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 4
of the Clayton Act, docketed under Case No. 19-cv-08182 (M.D. N.C.,
December 20, 2019).
Delta Dental is a network of independent companies conducting
business in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. Each individual plan contracts with dental service providers
to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to patients
with Delta Dental insurance contracts. Plaintiff alleges that the
plan providers, who are meant to compete with each other, have
agreed to allocate exclusive geographic markets through license
agreements that limit and restrict competition outside of their
respective territorial markets.
Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A. operates as "Greensboro Perio," a
dental service provider located at 301 East Wendover Avenue, Suite
315, Greensboro, NC and is part of Defendants' provider network and
provides dental care services to subscribers to Delta Dental
insurance coverage. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Southerland, Esq.
Scott C. Gayle, Esq.
TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 378-1431
Facsimile: (336) 274-6590
Email: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com
JSoutherland@tuggleduggins.com
SGayle@tuggleduggins.com
- and -
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
- and -
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (267) 314-7980, 519-8306
Fax: (973) 623-0858
Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 4 Ex-Officers Sue for ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
WJLA.com reports that four former DC cops have filed a class action
lawsuit against the Metropolitan Police Department, alleging that
the MPD doesn't accommodate officers with disabilities and instead
pushes them into retirement.
The lawsuit names the MPD, the city of DC, and police chief Peter
Newsham in his official capacity as defendants.
"Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the ADA and Section 504
by implementing a policy or practice of forcing employees with
disabilities who spend 172 cumulative work days in less than
full-duty status into disability retirement, with no possibility of
reasonable accommodation by reassignment, job restructuring, or
extended leave," states the lawsuit.
The four plaintiffs in the suit are former DC officers who
developed disabilities including congestive heart failure and
long-term foot and ankle injuries that restricted physical
activity.
The attorneys representing the plaintiffs are arguing that the MPD
violates the Americans With Disabilities Act by "engaging in
intrusive medical inquiries, requiring police officers to submit
medical records or submit to medical examination for conditions or
impairments that are not job related."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of current and former MPD officers
from December 9, 2014 onward, who developed a performance-altering
disability but weren't considered for "reassignment, job
restructuring, or extended leave." [GN]
ELECTROCORE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Kuehl Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, Inc. has sought the Court's order to dismiss the
complaint in the consolidated putative class action lawsuit under
the caption, Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No.
SOM-L 000876-19, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.
On July 8, 2019 and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court
of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19, and Shirley
Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19,
respectively. In addition to the Company, the defendants include
present and past directors and officers, the underwriters for the
Company's IPO, and two stockholders of the Company. The plaintiffs
each seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased common
stock of the Company in its IPO or whose purchases are traceable to
that offering.
The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with respect to the
registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO. The
complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.
On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which are proceeding
under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019.
electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
EXELON CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of Feb. 14 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of purchasers of Exelon Corporation (NASDAQ:EXC)
securities between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019 (the
"Class Period"). The case is captioned Flynn v. Exelon Corporation,
et al., No. 19-cv-08209, and is assigned to Judge Virginia M.
Kendall. The Exelon securities class action lawsuit charges Exelon
and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Exelon securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Exelon securities class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff can select the law firm of its
choice and acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Exelon securities class action lawsuit is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff of the Exelon securities class action lawsuit or
have questions concerning your rights regarding the Exelon
securities class action lawsuit, please visit our website by
clicking here or contact Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Exelon securities class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than February 14, 2020.
Exelon is a utility services holding company that engages in energy
generation and delivery businesses in the United States and Canada.
Exelon owns various "Utility Registrants" that are regulated by
state utility commissions, including, among other entities,
Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd"). ComEd's parent company is Exelon
Utilities.
The Exelon securities class action lawsuit alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
Exelon's business and operations. Specifically, defendants failed
to disclose that: (i) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in
unlawful lobbying activities, which increased the risk of a
criminal investigation into Exelon; (ii) ComEd's revenues were in
part the product of unlawful conduct and thus were unsustainable;
and (iii) as a result, Exelon's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Exelon has been the subject of numerous governmental investigations
into illicit lobbying activities and corruption. On July 15, 2019,
Exelon disclosed that both it and ComEd had "received a grand jury
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of Illinois requiring production of information concerning their
lobbying activities in the State of Illinois." Similarly, on
October 9, 2019, Exelon disclosed that, on October 4, 2019, both
Exelon and ComEd had "received a second grand jury subpoena from
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois
that requires production of records of any communications with
certain individuals and entities, including Illinois State Senator
Martin Sandoval."
On October 15, 2019, Exelon announced the abrupt departure of Anne
Pramaggiore, Exelon Utilities' CEO and the former President/CEO of
ComEd. Then, on October 31, 2019, Exelon disclosed that, "[o]n
October 22, 2019, the [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had]
notified Exelon and ComEd that it has also opened an investigation
into their lobbying activities." On November 1, 2019, the Chicago
Tribune reported "[a] source with knowledge of the case in Chicago"
had confirmed that "Pramaggiore is one focus of the ongoing federal
investigation." According to the same article, "[t]he ComEd
lobbying investigation dates to at least mid-May, when the FBI
executed search warrants at the homes of former lobbyist Mike
McClain of Quincy, a longtime confidant of House Speaker Michael
Madigan, and of former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski."
These disclosures caused the prices of Exelon securities to decline
significantly, causing investors in Exelon securities to suffer
investment losses.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Contact:
Brian Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Tel: 800-449-4900
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Goldman Files FCRA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Yochonon Goldman, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and American Express Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00145 (E.D., N.Y., Jan. 7, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, also known as Experian Americas, is
the US-based arm of global credit reporting agency Experian plc.
The unit provides credit reporting and lead generation services by
tapping its database of 235 million US consumers and some 25
million US businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
FIAT CHRYSLER: Gross Law Announces Shareholders' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCAU)
Investors Affected : February 26, 2016 - November 20, 2019
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company employed a bribery
scheme to obtain favorable terms in its collective bargaining
agreement with United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America; (2) high-ranking Fiat officials were
aware of and authorized the scheme; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Fiat's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-n-v-loss-submission-form/?id=4886&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]
FIAT CHRYSLER: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Jan. 31 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V.. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCAU)
FCAU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2016 - November 20, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 31, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-n-v-loss-form?prid=4961&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company employed
a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms in its collective
bargaining agreement with United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America; (2) high-ranking Fiat
officials were aware of and authorized the scheme; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Fiat's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
FCAU Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-n-v-loss-form?prid=4961&wire=1
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
FIAT CHRYSLER: Pawar Law Reminds of Jan. 31 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.
(NYSE: FCAU) from February 26, 2016 through November 20, 2019
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. investors under the
federal securities laws.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
31, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
To express an interest in the class action, go
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-n-v/or
call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that (1) Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms
in its collective bargaining agreement with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America; (2) high-ranking Fiat official were aware of and
authorized the scheme; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants'
statements about Fiat's receivables, business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Attorney advertising.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
PAWAR LAW GROUP
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
E-mail: info@pawarlawgroup.com
[GN]
FITBIT INC: Faces Phillips Securities Suit Over Alphabet Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PHILLIPS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FITBIT, INC., JAMES PARK, STEVEN J. MURRAY, ERIC N.
FRIEDMAN, CHRISTOPHER B. PAISLEY, GLENDA J. FLANAGAN, LAURA J.
ALBER, BRADLEY M. FLUEGEL and MATTHEW BROMBERG, Case No.
3:19-cv-08046 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2019), is brought on behalf of
the public holders of the common stock of Fitbit for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger between Fitbit and Alphabet Inc.
On November 1, 2019, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the
Company's shareholders stand to receive $7.35 in cash for each
share of Fitbit stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").
On November 25, 2019, in order to convince Fitbit shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, the Plaintiff asserts.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading, says the complaint.
In particular, the Plaintiff argues, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Fitbit shareholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, and the summary of
certain valuation analyses conducted by Fitbit's financial advisor,
Qatalyst Partners LP ("Qatalyst") in support of its opinion that
the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the
Board relied.
The Plaintiff contends that it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior
to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make
an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the
shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the
material information discussed below is disclosed to Fitbit
shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is a holder of Fitbit common stock.
Fitbit is a technology company that combines wearable devices with
software and services to give users tools to help them reach their
health and fitness goals, augmented by general purpose features
that add further utility and drive user engagement. The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Szep Sues Over Defective Vortec 5300 Engines
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SZEP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-02858-JG (N.D.
Ohio, Dec. 10, 2019), seeks damages and equitable relief for those
who purchased or leased one or more model year 2010-2013 GM
vehicles fitted with GM's defective Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8
Vortec 5300 engines.
GM made the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine available as an engine
option in the following vehicles: 2010-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche;
2010-2012 Chevrolet Colorado; 2010-2013 Chevrolet Express;
2010-2013 Chevrolet Silverado; 2010-2014 Chevrolet Suburban;
2010-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe; 2010-2013 GMC Canyon; 2010-2013 GMC
Savana; 2010-2013 GMC Sierra; 2010-2014 GMC Yukon; and 2010-2014
GMC Yukon XL.
According to the complaint, the class vehicles, which the defective
engines were installed, were engineered to fail. GM allegedly
failed to disclose the truth about these vehicles and failed to
remedy the well-established defects in the class vehicles that were
on the road.
The Plaintiff contends that the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine
consumes an abnormally and improperly high quantity of oil that far
exceeds industry standards for reasonable oil consumption. This
excessive oil consumption results in low oil levels, insufficient
lubricity levels, and corresponding internal engine component
damage, the lawsuit says.
Mr. Szep owns a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation
IV Vortec 5300 Engine. Mr. Szep purchased his Silverado from Tim
Lallie Chevrolet in Bedford Heights, Ohio.
Mr. Szep asserts that GM allegedly failed to disclose the Oil
Consumption Defect to him before he purchased his Silverado,
despite GM's knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Szep, therefore,
purchased his Silverado with the incorrect understanding that it
would be a reliable vehicle.
General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Western Reserve Law Building
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: 440 953-8888
E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
GLEN MILLS: Class Action Suit vs. School Survives Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague PC, Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, LLC,
and Sauder Schelkopf LLC are pleased to announce that the class
action lawsuit filed by their clients against The Glen Mills
Schools will proceed after the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a twenty-three page opinion
largely denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit, filed in March 2019, is brought on behalf of students
of The Glen Mills Schools who allege they were physically and
mentally abused while residing under the school's care. The case
asserts legal claims against The Glen Mills Schools and its
employees who physically and mentally abused or otherwise
mistreated children and young adults who were committed to the
school by juvenile courts or placed there for treatment and
educational purposes. The class action seeks compensatory and other
damages for the plaintiffs and class members who allege they
suffered physical, emotional, and other injuries as a result of the
severe abuse.
The class action alleges that school leaders, as a matter of
policy, practice, and custom, encouraged and turned a blind eye to
student abuse, and attempted to insulate themselves from the
claims. The plaintiffs allege the school's leadership fostered a
culture of abuse, engaged in negligent supervision, and failed to
properly vet or train the school's employees and contractors, many
of whom lacked the background and training needed to properly
manage the students in their care. Consequently, the lawsuit
alleges that children in the school's care were routinely abused
and that the school acted with reckless disregard and deliberate
indifference to the widespread violations of the students' rights,
despite being aware for decades of the systemic abuse. The lawsuit
alleges claims for negligence, intentional and negligent infliction
of emotional distress, and negligent supervision, as well as claims
under the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit was filed in the wake of an investigation by The
Philadelphia Inquirer that revealed decades of child abuse at The
Glen Mills Schools. The Inquirer's report described a culture of
violence and secrecy at the school. Former students and staff
members who were interviewed said counselors routinely choked and
punched the boys in their care, even breaking their bones. It was
further reported that when students and their families tried to
report the attacks, staff members attempted to silence them by
claiming the boys would be sent to even worse programs where they
would have to restart their sentences. In the lawsuit, the
plaintiffs allege claims individually and on behalf of hundreds and
possibly thousands of boys who have attended The Glen Mills Schools
and allege that they were subjected to widespread abuse.
In allowing the class action to proceed, Judge Harvey Bartle III of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania noted: "A class seeking
monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3) [of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure] is not precluded simply because individual class members
suffered different injuries in a situation where liability flows
from an official policy or widespread practice or custom of the
defendant . . . . Plaintiffs have alleged that the class members'
injuries arise from common policies or practices promulgated by
defendants' management, including the school's failure to train,
supervise, and discipline its staff, its indifference to abuse and
violence, and its efforts to cover up or otherwise impede
investigation of abuse. Such allegations are sufficient at this
stage of the action to move forward."
The attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Shanon Carson of Berger
Montague PC, David Rudovsky of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg
& Lin, LLP, and Joe Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf LLC, issued the
following joint statement: "We respect the Court's decision and we
look forward to litigating this important case on behalf of the
hundreds of former students of The Glen Mills Schools who have
contacted us regarding allegations of serious abuse while attending
the school. The next phase of the case will focus on obtaining,
through the discovery process, all the school's records that
pertain to the alleged abuse. We encourage any current or former
students of The Glen Mills Schools who experienced abuse, or any
other person who has relevant information, to contact attorney
Shanon Carson at 215-875-4656 or by email at scarson@bm.net. Those
interested in information about the case can visit
www.glenmillsschoolabuse.com."
Berger Montague PC is a national plaintiffs' class action and
complex litigation law firm headquartered in Philadelphia with
offices in Minneapolis, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. Berger
Montague litigates complex civil cases and class actions in federal
and state courts throughout the United States. In its 50 years of
operation, the Firm has pioneered the use of class actions in
America and recovered well over $30 billion for its clients and the
class members it has represented.
Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, LLP is a civil rights
law firm in Philadelphia that has litigated scores of cases
involving abuses of prisoners and other persons committed to
institutions in Pennsylvania and across the country. David Rudovsky
can be contacted at drudovsky@krlawphila.com.
Sauder Schelkopf LLC is a nationally recognized class action and
personal injury law firm whose attorneys have recovered over $500
million on behalf of clients and class members. The firm's
partners have been selected by the National Trial Lawyers
Association as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Pennsylvania
since 2012. As former state prosecutors, the attorneys at Sauder
Schelkopf have significant experience investigating and
aggressively prosecuting hundreds of abuse cases against
individuals who victimized innocent people.
Contact:
Shanon Carson, Esq.
Berger Montague PC
Telephone: (215) 875-4656
Firm Website: www.bergermontague.com
Case Website: www.glenmillsschoolabuse.com
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
[GN]
GLEN MILLS: Pa. District Court Narrows Miller Prisoners Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MOTHER MILLER, et al., v. THE GLEN MILLS
SCHOOLS, et al, Civil Action No. 19-1292 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey
Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to strike and dismiss class action allegations and to
dismiss, in part, the Plaintiffs' complaint.
Specifically, Judge Bartle denied the motion to strike and dismiss
class action allegations without prejudice as to the Plaintiffs'
class action allegations under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The Judge granted the motion to strike and
dismiss class action allegations as to the Plaintiffs' class action
allegations under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 in Count I of the complaint is granted to the
extent that the Plaintiffs allege violations of their rights under
the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. The motion is
otherwise denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SRHTaV from Leagle.com.
MOTHER MILLER, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF BILLY MILLER AND
CHARLIE JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by SHANON J. CARSON --
scarson@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, AMANDA TRASK -- atrask@bm.net
-- BERGER MONTAGUE, DAVID RUDOVSKY -- drudovsky@krlawphila.com --
KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING FEINBERG & LIN, LLP & JOSEPH G. SAUDER --
jgs@sstriallawyers.com -- Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
THE GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH J. MCHALE
-- jmchale@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP,
BRANDON MICHAEL RILEY -- briley@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON
STEVENS & YOUNG, JOSEPH THOMAS KELLEHER -- jkelleher@stradley.com
-- STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP & PENELOPE CILLUFFO --
pcilluffo@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG.
GREEN DOT: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Green Dot Corporation (NYSE: GDOT) in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Green
Dot between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Green Dot
investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements about: (1) the Company's strategy to attract
"high-value" long-term customers was at the expense of "one and
done" customers; (2) the Company's "one and done" customers
represented a significant source of revenues in its legacy segment;
(3) consequently, the Company's strategy was self-sabotaging; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about its
business and operations were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the February 17, 2020
lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Misclassifies Technicians, Pairan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Pairan, on Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES OF OHIO, LLC and GUARDIAN
PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00017-SJD (S.D. Ohio,
Jan. 7, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Fair Wage Standards Act by
misclassifying the Plaintiff and other technicians as independent
contractors.
The Plaintiff, who was hired by the Defendants as a technician,
contends that at no point in time was he an independent contractor.
Nonetheless, the Defendants caused him to believe he was an
independent contractor when in fact he was an employee of the
Defendants.
By misclassifying the Plaintiff and other technicians as
independent contractors, the Defendants deceived them and deprived
them of statutory protections and overtime pay, says the complaint.
Guardian knew it was misclassifying the Plaintiff, but instead of
reclassifying him and paying him the overtime to which he was
entitled, Guardian waited for the statute of limitations to toll
before terminating his employment, the Plaintiff asserts. He adds
that Guardian did not post, or keep posted, in conspicuous places a
notice explaining his rights under the FLSA.
Guardian Protection Services sells, installs, and monitors
residential and commercial security and home automation
systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bennett P. Allen, Esq.
David M. Cook, Esq.
COOK & LOGOTHETIS, LLC
30 Garfield Place, Suite 540
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 287-6992
Fax: (513) 721-1178
Email: ballen@econjustice.com
dcook@econjustice.com
HERSHEY CO: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Brookside Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Carl Mazurek, and Ariella E. Muller, writing
for the National Law Review, report that a California federal judge
recently handed a victory to the Hershey Co. in a suit alleging the
company falsely represented that its Brookside chocolate products
have no artificial flavors. Clark v. Hershey Co., 18-cv-06113 (N.D.
Cal. Nov. 15, 2019). U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted
summary judgment in favor of Hershey on the basis of facts
undermining plaintiffs' contentions that they were misled by the
products' labeling and relied on the misleading labeling in
deciding to purchase the Brookside chocolates.
The plaintiffs filed a consumer class action in October 2018
alleging that Hershey deliberately deceived consumers by labeling
its Brookside Dark Chocolate products as containing no artificial
flavors, when in fact the products contain malic acid, a synthetic
chemical. The plaintiffs claimed they believed they were purchasing
all-natural products made only with natural ingredients, and were
surprised to learn the chocolates contained an artificial
ingredient.
According to the suit, Hershey falsely represented that the
products contained all natural ingredients by including the "no
artificial flavors" label, and neglecting to include a label
disclosing the artificial flavoring as required by California law.
As an initial matter, Judge Alsup distinguished between the terms
"artificial ingredient" and "artificial flavor," finding that while
the description "artificial ingredient" covers a wide range of
substances, "artificial flavor" is to be understood more narrowly
as something used to impart flavor. Thus, the judge found that
Clark had misunderstood the "no artificial flavors" label by
interpreting it to mean the products contained no artificial
ingredients whatsoever, and that Clark's injury stemmed from his
own misunderstanding rather than from any alleged mislabeling.
Regarding the claims of the two other plaintiffs, Judge Alsop found
that both began purchasing the products well before the
introduction of the label, and did not demonstrate any change in
purchasing habits following the appearance of the label containing
the "no artificial flavors" language. This being the case, the
judge found no indication that the label played any role in either
plaintiff's decision to purchase the products. In fact, the judge
noted, the decision to stop buying the products was prompted by the
lawyers informing plaintiffs that the chocolates contained an
artificial ingredient, and not based upon the label.
As part of the order granting summary judgment, Judge Alsup also
denied as moot the plaintiffs' request to certify California and
New York classes in the suit. [GN]
HOME CARE OF DENVER: Class in Pena Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CAROLINE PENA, Plaintiff, v. HOME CARE OF
DENVER, LLC, d/b/a All State Home Health, and JET HEALTH, INC.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-00069-CMA-NYW (D. Colo.), Judge
Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado granted in part the parties' Stipulation and Motion for
an Order for Collective Action Notice.
The Plaintiff worked as a Registered Nurse for the Defendants
performing home health services. She alleges that the Defendants
misclassified her and other clinicians as exempt for purposes of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law, and as a
result, compensated the Plaintiff without consideration of overtime
wages for any of the work that she performed beyond 40 hours in any
workweek or beyond 12 hours in any workday. Based on these
allegations, the Plaintiff asserts a collective action under the
FLSA and class action claims under Colorado law.
The matter is before the Court on the parties' Stipulation and
Motion for an Order for Collective Action Notice. They request
that the Court enter an Order (1) conditionally certifying
Plaintiff Caroline Pena's collective action arising under the FLSA
against the Defendants; and (2) authorizing the dissemination of
the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent Form to the potential
Plaintiffs.
In the instant action, the parties stipulate and agree that the
Court should conditionally certify the proposed collective action.
Having reviewed the Plaintiff's Complaint and applicable law, Judge
Arguello finds that the Plaintiff's substantial allegations support
that the Plaintiff and any other present or former employee
eligible under the proposed collective action definition were
together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.
Indeed, the alleged FLSA violations arise from the Defendants'
single decision, policy, or plan regarding the classification and
compensation of past and current employees within the proposed
definition.
Accordingly, Judge Arguello conditionally certifies the following
class: All present and former employees of All State Home Health
who were employed as home health Clinicians (defined as Registered
Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech
Language Pathologists, and Medical Social Workers) at any time from
May 10, 2016 through the present and who were paid on a
quasi-salary basis.
In the instant case, the parties also stipulate and agree that the
Plaintiff's Proposed Notice and Consent Form should be disseminated
to the potential collective action members according to the terms
and conditions of the proposed Order. Having reviewed the
Stipulation, the Judge agrees that the dissemination conditions and
method are "fair and accurate." However, the proposed Notice and
Consent Form do not contain information necessary to ensure that
both documents are "fair and accurate."
The Court previously approved notice and consent forms that advised
recipients of their rights to be represented by the counsel for the
original Plaintiff, to obtain independent representation, or to
participate pro se and certain rights of an 'opt-in' plaintiff,
including the right not to be bound by a settlement that the
original Plaintiff advocates. The proposed Notice and Consent Form
fail to include such requisite information.
First, the proposed Notice and Consent Form fail to advise the
potential Plaintiffs that she or he may choose to opt-in to the
collective action and represent her or himself. Accordingly, to
ensure that the proposed Notice and Consent Form are "fair and
accurate," both documents must be modified to advise a potential
Plaintiff that she or he may opt-in the collective action and
choose either to be represented by the Plaintiff's counsel, to
obtain independent representation, or to participate pro se.
Second, the proposed Notice fails to advise a potential Plaintiff
of her or his opt-in right to join the collective action and
decline to be represented by the Named Plaintiff. To ensure that
the proposed Notice is "fair and accurate," it must be modified to
advise a potential Plaintiff of her or his opt-in rights, including
whether to decline to be represented by the Named Plaintiff,
whether to choose to make decisions on her or his own behalf
concerning what claims and arguments should be presented and how,
whether to accept any settlement offer or proceed to trial, and
whether to be bound by a settlement that the Named Plaintiff
advocates.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Arguello granted in part the
parties' Joint Stipulation and Motion for Order for Collective
Action Notice.
Judge Arguello conditionally certified the class of all present and
former employees of All State Home Health who were employed as home
health Clinicians (defined as Registered Nurses, Physical
Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists,
and Medical Social Workers) at any time from May 10, 2016 through
the present and who were paid on a quasi-salary basis.
The Judge approved the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent,
subject to the Notice and Consent Form being amended to accurately
reflect the advisement of opt-in rights as set forth.
The parties will, without delay, stipulate to and file amended
versions of the proposed Notice and Consent Form that reflect the
Court-ordered modifications as set forth.
Within 28 days of the Court's approval of the amended Notice and
Consent Form, the Defendants will furnish to the Plaintiff's
counsel a list containing the names, last known addresses, email
addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment for the
agreed upon defined group set forth. The mailing list is to be
furnished in electronic form and will be treated by the parties as
confidential. The 28-day deadline to provide the foregoing
information may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
The Court-approved Notice and Consent Form will be sent within 14
days of the Defendant's disclosure; the opt-in period will run 45
days from the date the first Notice and Consent Form are mailed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LRLjSa from Leagle.com.
Caroline Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James B. Zouras --
jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, Ryan F. Stephan
-- rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, Teresa M.
Becvar -- tbecvar@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP & Brian
David Gonzales -- bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com -- Brian D.
Gonzales, PLLC.
Home Care of Denver, LLC, doing business as All State Home Health &
Jet Health, Inc., Defendants, represented by Morgan E. Podruski --
MPODRUSKI@CALLJENSEN.COM -- Call & Jensen, P.C..
HUDSON MARKET: To Reduce Lawyer Costs to $27K to Get Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case ABRAHAN VELAZQUEZ CUAUTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
HUDSON MARKET 303 LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-2968
(OTW) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York will approve
the parties' settlement agreement on the condition that the
attorney's fees and costs be reduced to $26,771.30, with the
difference between the requested fees and the reduced fees divided
pro rata among the Plaintiffs.
On Sept. 5, 2019, the Court issued an order denying approval of the
parties' settlement agreement as fair and reasonable under Cheeks
v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., specifically pointing to the
agreement's problematic release and non-disparagement provisions.
The parties have now renewed their request for approval, removing
the non-disparagement provision and appropriately limiting the
release to "wage and hour" claims. Accordingly, the final analysis
of the parties' settlement agreement is determining the
reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs.
The Court had expressed concern previously about the claimed
attorney's fees, but had reserved decision as to their
reasonableness after the revised agreement was submitted. It has
"considerable discretion" in determining a reasonable fee. Even
where, as in the case, the attorney's fees are governed by a
percentage of the total settlement amount and the fees do not
exceed one-third of the settlement, the Court must still employ the
lodestar method to determine reasonableness. The lodestar method
compares the proposed fees with the lodestar amount, a reasonable
hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours needed to
be spent on the case.
The proposed settlement awards $35,000 in attorney's fees and
costs, one-third of the total settlement amount. The Plaintiff
asserts that this is reasonable because it only represents 1.9
times his billed amount of $18,389.50.
As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Wang finds both the billed
rates and hours unreasonable. The Plaintiffs' counsel billed at
the following rates: Michael Faillace - $450/hour; Daniel
Tannenbaum - $350/hour, Clifford Tucker - $375/hour, Gennadiy
Naydenskiy - $350/hour, and Haleigh Amant - $250/hour. Courts have
routinely found that Mr. Faillace's and his firm's charged hourly
rates are excessive.
In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel's billed 57.35 hours is
excessive, considering how little work was required for the case.
The Magistrate Judge holds that the Plaintiffs did not engage in
any motion practice and only attended two conferences. Upon review
of the specific time entries, she also is concerned about the
inflation of hours billed. Accordingly, instead of going through
and reducing the hourly rate and billed hours for each specific
time entry, the Magistrate Judge finds that a 30% reduction in the
counsel's billed fees results in a more appropriate lodestar amount
of $12,872.65.
Compared to the $33,974 in proposed attorney's fees, the lodestar
of $12,872.65 amounts to a multiplier of 2.6. When analyzing a
multiplier, the Court should consider factors such as the attorney
time expended, the complexity of the case, and the quality of the
attorneys' representation. While they cited cases awarding a
multiplier of up to 5, the Plaintiffs' counsel provided no reason
why a multiplier on the higher end of the typical range for FLSA
cases is appropriate in the particular case, which was not complex
and did not involve any motion practice or depositions.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds that a multiplier of 2 is
more appropriate for the case, resulting in an award of $25,745.30
in fees and $1,026 in filing and service costs.
For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wang will approve the
parties' settlement agreement on the condition that the attorney's
fees and costs be reduced to $26,771.30, with the difference
between the requested fees and the reduced fees divided pro rata
among the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to file
a joint status letter indicating whether the parties agree to
restructure the settlement agreement to reflect the reduced
attorney's fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/d8Kh0X from Leagle.com.
Abrahan Velazquez Cuautle, individually, Abrahan Velazquez Cuautle,
on behalf of others similarly situated, Arturo Gil Garita,
individually, Arturo Gil Garita, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Cesario Vazquez Talavera, individually, Cesario Vazquez
Talavera, on behalf of others similarly situated, Cristo Garcia
Santiago, individually, Cristo Garcia Santiago, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Jose Humberto Becerra Buitrago, individually,
Jose Humberto Becerra Buitrago, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Jose Oscar Juarez Ramos, individually, Jose Oscar Juarez
Ramos, on behalf of others similarly situated, Jose Perez Espinal,
individually, Jose Perez Espinal, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Jose Yat Chic, individually, Jose Yat Chic, on behalf of
others similarly situated, Pedro Ramales, individually, Pedro
Ramales, on behalf of others similarly situated, Pedro Tecun Pol,
individually, Pedro Tecun Pol, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Rafael Pascual Chacaj Batz, individually, Rafael Pascual
Chacaj Batz, on behalf of others similarly situated, Raul Antonio
Cruz, individually & Raul Antonio Cruz, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shawn Raymond Clark
-- sclark@tpglaws.com -- Phillips & Associates & Michael Antonio
Faillace -- Faillace@emplyomentcompliance.com -- Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C.
Hudson Market 303 LLC, doing business as, Christopher Santos, Chan
K. Park, Terrence Park, Scott Barner, Greg Grossman, Adam Doe,
Jazmin Doe & Zack Doe, Defendants, represented by Jonathan Yoon
Sue, Law Offices of Jonathan Y. Sue, PLLC.
INALLIANCE: Settlement Hrg. in Osegueda Suit Continued in January
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California continued the hearing on the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement to Jan. 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in the case captioned
JOSEPH OSEGUEDA, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of
California, Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INALLIANCE; and DOES
1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00835-WBS-EFB
(E.D. Cal.)
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/duAMSj from Leagle.com.
Joseph Osegueda, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole Rachelle
Roysdon,
GrahamHollis, APC, Graham S.P. Hollis, GrahamHollis, APC &
Vilmarie
Cordero, Graham Hollis A.P.C.
Northern California Inalliance, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Charles Jaime -- mjaime@mathenysears.com -- Matheny Sears Linkert
and Jaime LLP & Robert W. Sweetin -- rsweetin@mathenysears.com --
Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime LLP.
IZEA WORLDWIDE: Perez Class Action Settlement Wins Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
issued an Order approving the settlement of the securities class
action lawsuit styled, Julian Perez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al., according to
IZEA Worldwide, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 14, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019. The settlement requires that the lawsuit
be dismissed with prejudice.
A securities class action lawsuit, Julian Perez, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al.,
case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS was instituted April 4, 2018 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf
of certain purchasers of its common stock. The plaintiffs seek to
recover damages for investors under federal securities laws. The
Company has estimated and accrued a potential loss of US$500,000
representing its deductible on the associated insurance coverage.
On April 15, 2019, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that
contained settlement terms as agreed upon by the parties to the
Perez class action lawsuit. The motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement was granted on May 7, 2019.
According to the terms of the settlement, as agreed upon by the
parties, IZEA's insurer deposited US$800,000 into the settlement
fund and we paid the remainder of the Company's previously accrued
insurance deductible of US$400,000 into escrow to be used as
settlement funds, inclusive of lead plaintiff awards and lead
counsel fees.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an Order approving the settlement of the Perez class action
lawsuit on September 26, 2019, which requires that the lawsuit be
dismissed with prejudice.
IZEA Worldwide, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that
connect marketers and content creators. IZEA Worldwide, Inc. was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida.
JAGUAR HEALTH: Still Defends Plant Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. continues to face the class action suit
initiated by Tony Plant in California, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.
On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-04102, by Tony Plant (the "Plaintiff") on
behalf of shareholders of the Company who held shares on April 12,
2017 and were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders
Meeting, against the Company and certain individuals who were
directors as of the date of the vote (collectively, the
"Defendants"), in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal
Health, Inc., et al., making claims arising under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.14a-9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC.
The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4 (File
No. 333-217364) declared effective by the Commission on July 6,
2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to
approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto. The
Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf of
itself and the United States-based director Defendants on November
1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf of, and
Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director
Defendants.
On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion was granted. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and the United States-based director
Defendants on January 10, 2018. The Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on March 12, 2018, for which oral arguments were held on
June 14, 2018. The court dismissed the amended complaint on
September 20, 2018 but gave Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint
within 20 days from the date of dismissal.
On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff amended the complaint to focus on
the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia and the
related disclosure statements in the Form S-4.
On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The Defendants argued in their motion that the
second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because the omissions and misrepresentations alleged
in the complaint are immaterial as a matter of law. The court
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 28, 2019. The
Defendants answered the second amended complaint on August 2, 2019.
Discovery will now proceed.
The Company said, "If the Plaintiff were able to prove his
allegations in this matter and to establish the damages he asserts,
then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on the
Company."
The Company believes that it is not probable that an asset has been
impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the
financial statements and the amount of any potential loss is not
reasonably estimable.
Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
JEDSON ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wiggins Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY WIGGINS, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
JEDSON ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00354 (E.D. Tenn., Dec.
10, 2019), arises from Jedson's failure to pay overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Wiggins and the Putative Class Members
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week, but Jedson did not
pay these workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a single workweek as required by the FLSA. Instead, Jedson paid
these workers the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including
those in excess of 40 in a workweek (straight time for overtime).
Wiggins and the Putative Class Members never received a guaranteed
salary, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff worked for Jedson as a Construction Manager from
September 2016 until February 2017. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Defendant's
workers.
Jedson is an "integrated engineering, procurement, and construction
management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
MIKEL & HAMILL
620 Lindsay Street, Suite 200
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Telephone: 423 541 5400
Facsimile: 423 541 5401
E-mail: dmikel@mhemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
KEELER INSTRUMENTS: Settlement in Retina Suit Gets Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has granted final approval of the class
action settlement in RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. KEELER INSTRUMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-01358-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.).
The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement by the
Preliminary Approval Order dated July 22, 2019, and notice was
given to the Class under the terms of the Preliminary Approval
Order. It held a hearing on Dec. 13, 2019, at which time the
Parties and all other interested persons were afforded the
opportunity to be heard in support of and in opposition to the
Settlement; however, no Class Members objected to the Settlement.
Furthermore, it finds that notice under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA") was effectuated on July 8, 2019, and that 90
days have passed without comment or objection from any governmental
entity. The Court has received no objections from any person
regarding the Settlement.
Based on the papers filed with the Court and the presentations made
to by the Parties and any other interested persons at the hearing,
Judge Carney granted final approval to the Settlement and finds
that the Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the Class.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), he certified, for
settlement purposes only, the class of all persons or business
entities in the United States who from Aug. 3, 2014, until the date
of preliminary approval were sent an unsolicited telephone
facsimile message of material advertising the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or
on behalf of Defendant.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiff Retina
Associates is appointed as the Representative Plaintiff for the
Class, and Edwards Pottinger LLC and Schultz & Associates LLP as
the Class Counsel.
Judge Carney dismissed the Action with prejudice and without costs
(except as otherwise provided herein and in the Settlement
Agreement) as to the Plaintiff and all the Class members.
Judge Carney also approved payment to the Class Counsel of
attorneys' fees in the amount of $77,500 and $8,282.79 for costs
and expenses. The Judge also approved a Representative Award of
$5,000 for the Plaintiff. The amounts will be paid from the
Settlement Benefits in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. He also approved the requested administration costs in
the amount of $43,142.74 to be paid to KCC.
A full-text copy of Judge Carney's Dec. 13, 2019 Final Order is
available at https://is.gd/FuXNC6 from Leagle.com.
Retina Associates Medical Group, Inc., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Seth
Lehrman -- seth@epllc.com -- Edwards Pottinger LLC, Ronald J.
Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- Schultz and Associates
LLP, pro hac vice & Todd M. Friedman, Law Office of Todd M Friedman
PC.
Keeler Instruments, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Zaki --
andrew.zaki@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, Karen S.
Hockstad -- karen.hockstad@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore and Shohl LLP,
pro hac vice & Joseph S. Leventhal -- joseph.leventhal@dinsmore.com
-- Dinsmore and Shohl LLP.
KEMET CORPORATION: Faces Rosenblatt Suit Over Sale to Yageo
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. KEMET CORPORATION, FRANK G. BRANDENBERG,
WILFRIED BACKES, GURMINDER S. BEDI, JACOB KOTZUBEI, WILLIAM LOWE,
E. ERWIN MADDREY, II, YASUKO MATSUMOTO, ROBERT G. PAUL, and KAREN
M. ROGGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00023-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 7, 2020), stems
from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which KEMET will be
acquired by Yageo Corporation and Sky Merger Sub Inc.
On November 11, 2019, KEMET's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Yageo. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, KEMET's stockholders will
receive $27.20 in cash for each share of KEMET common stock they
own.
On December 26, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading
and, as a result, the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.
The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement fails to disclose,
for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate
(a) Adjusted EBIT, (b) Adjusted EBITDA, (c) Adjusted EBITDA Margin,
(d) Adjusted EPS, and (e) free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation
of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Proxy Statement also omits
material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and fails to disclose whether
the Company entered into any nondisclosure agreements that
contained "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were
preventing the counterparties from requesting waivers of standstill
provisions to submit offers to acquire the Company.
Without this information, stockholders may have the mistaken belief
that, if these potentially interested parties wished to come
forward with a superior offer, they are or were permitted to do so,
when in fact they are or were contractually prohibited from doing
so, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the owner of KEMET common stock.
KEMET offers customers a broad selection of capacitor technologies
in the industry, along with an expanding range of sensors,
actuators, and electromagnetic compatibility solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
LIFELABS LP: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach of 15M Canadians
------------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell Phillips PC and Klein & Schonblum Associates have launched
a national privacy breach class action against LifeLabs and
associated companies on behalf of the estimated 15 million
Canadians whose personal information, including highly sensitive
health information, was compromised in a cyber attack. The cyber
criminals demanded, and LifeLabs subsequently paid, an undisclosed
amount as a ransom in an attempt to secure the data. The
compromised information includes, but is not limited to, medical
lab test results, health card numbers, names, addresses, emails,
login information, passwords, and dates of birth.
LifeLabs is one of the largest medical testing companies in the
world, providing diagnostic medical testing services, including
specimen collection, laboratory testing, and reporting of results
to patients and health practitioners, across Canada. Each year,
LifeLabs performs over 112 million laboratory tests on Canadians.
It was not until December 17, 2019, almost two months after the
attack occurred, that LifeLabs first made a public announcement
about the attack and the subsequent privacy breach.
"Health care records, and in particular lab test results, are some
of the most private and sensitive personal information a company
can hold. Unauthorized access and use can be devastating," said
David Fogel, a lawyer with Klein & Schonblum Associates. "It is
extremely distressing that not only did LifeLabs fail to protect
the personal health information of its clients, but that it took
them almost two months to tell the public about it."
"The scale of the LifeLabs privacy breach is truly massive – it
affects over three quarters of all Ontarians and British
Columbians," said Cory Wanless, a lawyer with Waddell Phillips.
"Basically anyone in Ontario or BC who has gone for any form of
medical testing over the past several years is affected."
The class action team is being led by Margaret Waddell. Ms.
Waddell, founding partner of Waddell Phillips, is recognized by
multiple lawyer ranking agencies as a leader in plaintiff-side
class actions, and has acted as class counsel on a number of
prominent cases.
Further information regarding the proposed class action will be
posted as it becomes available at
www.waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/
Contact:
Cory Wanless, Esq.
Waddell Phillips PC
Tel: (647) 874-2555
Email: cory@waddellphillips.ca
David Fogel, Esq.
Klein & Schonblum Associates
Tel: (416) 480-0221
Email: dfogel@ksalaw.com
[GN]
LIVE NATION: Rosen Law Investigating Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: LYV) resulting from
allegations that Live Nation may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
On December 13, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") was preparing to take legal
action against Live Nation based on allegations that the company
sought to "strong-arm" concert venues into using its
market-dominant Ticketmaster subsidiary. Such efforts would violate
the terms of a settlement agreement that Live Nation and
Ticketmaster reached with the government in 2010 as a condition of
their merger. Under that agreement, the DOJ allowed the companies
to combine, but required them to abide by conditions meant to
preserve competition in the music and ticketing industries.
As a result of this news, Live Nation's share price fell $5.09 or
7.3% to close at 64.34 on December 13, 2019.
Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Live Nation investors. If you purchased shares
of Live Nation please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1741.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Website: www.rosenlegal.com
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]
LOBLAW COMPANIES: 'Bread' Cartel' Class Suit Given Go-Ahead Signal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge
authorized a class-action lawsuit on December 19, 2019 against 10
companies that are alleged to have engaged in fixing the price of
bread over nearly two decades.
The class action concerns all people in Quebec who purchased at
least one package of bread from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 19, 2019, the
day the lawsuit was authorized. Associations are also covered under
the lawsuit.
Among the defendants in the alleged "bread cartel" are Loblaw
Companies Ltd., George Weston Ltd., Metro Inc., Sobeys Quebec Inc.,
Walmart Canada Corp., Canada Bread Company Ltd., and the Giant
Tiger chain of stores. The class action was filed in October
2017.
Earlier that year, the federal Competition Bureau executed search
warrants in the offices of several grocery stores as part of an
investigation into allegations of price fixing. Documents allege
the country's largest grocery stores and bakery wholesalers
conspired to artificially inflate the price of bread and related
products by at least $1.50 a package from 2001 to 2017.
The class action seeks, among other things, that the defendants be
ordered to pay an amount equal to the revenues generated by the
"artificially inflated portion of the price of prepackaged bread
sold in Quebec," according to the decision by Judge Pierre Gagnon
allowing the case to proceed in court.
The class action would also seek that interest be paid.
The court will examine a number of questions, including whether the
defendants conspired to undermine competition for bread.
In November 2017, Loblaw Companies and George Weston Ltd. issued a
statement admitting to a price-fixing arrangement and confirmed
they alerted the Competition Bureau after discovering the alleged
scheme in 2015. At the same time, Loblaw announced a $25 gift card
as a goodwill gesture to any eligible customers. [GN]
MAVERICK TUBE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Parker Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonobia Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00005-DPM
(E.D. Ark., Jan. 7, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
During weeks in which the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked for over 40 hours in a workweek and received a
nondiscretionary bonus, the Defendant paid an improper overtime
rate because the Defendant determined the regular rate of pay
solely based on employees' hourly rate, without including the value
of the nondiscretionary bonuses that it provided to them, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an auxiliary rope
hanger.
The Defendant is a foreign for-profit corporation registered to do
business in Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tess Bradford, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
MDL 1720: Visa Still Defends Individual Merchant Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019, that the individual merchant actions against
the Company, among other companies, have been either assigned to
the judge presiding over MDL 1720, or have been transferred or are
being considered for transfer by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for inclusion in MDL 1720.
Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of
which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal
district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa
International and/or Mastercard, and in some cases, certain U.S.
financial institutions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL 1720.
Since May 2013, more than 50 cases have been filed in or removed to
various federal district courts by hundreds of merchants generally
pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those raised in
MDL 1720. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.,
Visa International, Mastercard Incorporated and Mastercard
International Incorporated, although some also include certain U.S.
financial institutions as defendants. A number of the cases
include allegations that Visa has monopolized, attempted to
monopolize, and/or conspired to monopolize debit card-related
market segments. Some of the cases seek an injunction against the
setting of default interchange rates; certain Visa operating rules
relating to merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule; and
various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee.
In addition, some cases assert that Visa, Mastercard and/or their
member banks conspired to prevent the adoption of chip-and-PIN
authentication in the U.S. or otherwise circumvent competition in
the debit market. Certain individual merchants have filed amended
complaints to, among other things, add claims for injunctive relief
and update claims for damages.
In addition to the cases filed by individual merchants, Visa,
Mastercard, and certain U.S. financial institution defendants in
MDL 1720 filed complaints against certain merchants in the Eastern
District of New York seeking, in part, a declaration that Visa's
conduct did not violate federal or state antitrust laws.
The individual merchant actions have been either assigned to the
judge presiding over MDL 1720, or have been transferred or are
being considered for transfer by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for inclusion in MDL 1720. These
individual merchant actions are U.S. covered litigation for
purposes of the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
MDL 2672: Bosch's Class Certification Motion Denied in VW Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This
Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 6386, 6387, 6605, 6821, 6825, 6827
Napleton, No. 3:16-cv-2086-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, after granting the Bosch Defendants' motion
for summary judgment on all of the named-Plaintiff-dealerships'
claims, denied as moot (i) the Dealers' motion for class
certification, and (ii) the Dealers' motion to exclude an expert
report that the Bosch Defendants submitted in opposition to class
certification.
Judge Breyer also addresses several motions to seal. The Dealers
and the Bosch Defendants seek to seal numerous exhibits that they
included with their briefing on class certification and on the
motion to exclude. Many of the exhibits identify technical details
about the Bosch Defendants' emissions software. Others detail the
Dealers' finances.
If the Court had considered the motion for class certification and
the motion to exclude, the parties' interests in keeping these
exhibits confidential may not have outweighed the public's right of
access. However, because the Court did not consider the motions --
and denied them as moot -- the scale tips the other way. The
presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents is
based on the public policies of judicial accountability and
education about the judicial process.
For the exhibits in question, these policies carry little weight.
To understand the judicial process, the public may review the
parties' briefing and evidence (and the Court's Order) on summary
judgment. Those documents are publicly available and reveal how
the case was decided. The exhibits to the motion for class
certification and to the motion to exclude, in contrast, do not
offer insight into the judicial process, because the Court did not
consider them.
The parties have an interest in keeping their technical and
financial information confidential. Although that interest is not
absolute, it outweighs the public's right of access under the
circumstances. Judge Breyer therefore granted the parties' motions
to seal.
A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ok5WiK from Leagle.com.
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.
Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater --
mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, Alexis
L. Collins -- alcollins@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. --
cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac
vice, David E. Brodsky -- dbrodsky@cgsh -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Kennedy Park -- jkpark@cgsh --
Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Larry
Work-Dembowski -- lwork-dembowski@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen
and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Lewis Jeffrey Liman , Cleary
Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Sandrock ,
Sidley Austin, LLP.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
MDL 2672: Court Allows Redactions in Service of Process Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an Order allowing redactions
requested by defendants in the multi-district litigation IN RE:
VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates To: Dkt. No. 4171, MDL No.
2672 CRB (JSC). (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal (i) certain exhibits that they
attached to one of their alternative-service-of-process motions and
(ii) quotes and summaries of those exhibits in the motion.
Plaintiffs request that this information be sealed because it was
marked as confidential by the Volkswagen defendants.
In a declaration submitted in response to plaintiffs' motion to
seal, counsel for the Volkswagen defendants requests that the Court
permit a narrower set of redactions, covering only the names of
certain non-parties who are identified in one of the exhibits, and
the home address of one of these non-parties. With those
redactions, the Volkswagen defendants do not object to the exhibits
being filed publicly.
Consistent with its prior Orders, Judge Breyer permitted redactions
requested by the Volkswagen defendants. All other information in
and attached to the alternative-service-of-process motion at issue
were to be publicly filed by the Plaintiffs.
A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's November 14, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vjrdbhx from Leagle.com
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -
rob@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman- steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser - toml@hbsslaw.com - Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -
astewart@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
- tshapiro@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker - caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro
hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman - Charles.Zimmerman@zimmreed.com -
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -
avague@lightfootlaw.com -Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -clucier@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III - chuck.baker@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker - chtucker@rhodesokla.com - Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -
dana.lang@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg - eisenberg@bscr-law.com - Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. - henry.smythe@wbd-us.com - Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice
MDL 2672: Court Grants Summary Judgment for Bosch in VW Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district ligation IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This
Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 6919, 6953 Napleton, No.
3:16-cv-02086-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch
LLC's motion for summary judgment.
Volkswagen dealerships, in the proposed class action, allege that
the Bosch Defendants were knowing participants in Volkswagen's
"clean diesel" emissions fraud. The dealerships assert that they
were harmed by the fraud and they seek to recover damages.
The Bosch Defendants have moved for summary judgment. They contend
that judgment in their favor is warranted because the named
Plaintiff dealerships, after more than two years of discovery, have
not identified any recoverable damages from the emissions fraud.
As for the RICO claims, Judge Breyer finds that Volkswagen provided
the dealers with support payments that were intended to -- and did
-- cover the costs of servicing, storing, and financing the TDIs
that the dealers had in inventory when the stop-sale orders were
issued. And after the EPA approved modifications for the cars and
the stop-sale orders were lifted, Volkswagen paid the dealers for
the work required to modify the cars and to prepare them for sale.
The dealers ultimately sold all of the TDIs they had in inventory,
and they realized profits on almost all of those sales. In fact, on
average their profit margins on those sales exceeded their margins
on TDI sales prior to the stop-sale orders. Only one of the
dealers incurred a loss on the sale of certain TDIs that it had in
inventory at the time of the stop-sale orders. But those losses
were more than covered by Volkswagen's support payments.
The dealers have not meaningfully challenged or rebutted the
evidence. It follows that a reasonable fact finder could not find
that the dealers suffered losses directly from the stop-sale
orders.
Next, Judge Breyer finds that the dealers' suggestion that
Volkswagen could have manufactured legal 'Turbocharged Direct
Injection' diesel engines (TDIs) that would have attracted a
similar level of consumer demand as the illegal TDIs is unsupported
and speculative. More is needed to support their claim. The
dealers' lost profits from yet-to-be-manufactured TDIs did not
result from an injury to their "business or property" that was "by
reason of" a pattern of racketeering activity. The dealers
accordingly cannot recover these lost profits under RICO.
Like the dealers' lost profits from the TDI line's discontinuation,
their buyback-related losses were not caused by the challenged
racketeering activity, Judge Breyer holds. Until the emissions
fraud came to light, the dealers benefited from servicing
noncompliant TDIs. They did not lose that revenue stream until the
fraud was revealed and Volkswagen was forced to buy back many of
the cars. As it was the emissions fraud's discovery, not the fraud
itself, that caused the dealers' buyback-related losses, the chain
of causation between the challenged conduct and the dealers'
damages is again lacking. As a result, this category of damages is
also not recoverable against the Bosch Defendants under RICO.
Judge Breyer reaffirms that the dealers cannot recover under RICO
for losses resulting from a decline in goodwill. The Judge also
notes that the dealers have not offered any evidence supporting
such losses. Hence, no damages that are recoverable under RICO
have been identified. As a result, the dealers' RICO claims cannot
proceed.
Turning to the state law claims, Judge Breyer holds that dealers
have not submitted proof of any damages that are recoverable under
their causes of action against the Bosch Defendants. The damages
that the dealers seek to recover under these state laws are
materially the same as the damages they seek to recover under RICO.
As with their RICO claims, the dealers have not submitted proof
that these damages are recoverable.
According, Judge Breyer granted summary judgment for the Bosch
Defendants.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/1f6W39 from Leagle.com.
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.
Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater --
mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, Alexis
L. Collins -- alcollins@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. --
cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac
vice, David E. Brodsky -- dbrodsky@cgsh -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Kennedy Park -- jkpark@cgsh --
Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Larry
Work-Dembowski -- lwork-dembowski@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen
and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Lewis Jeffrey Liman , Cleary
Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Sandrock ,
Sidley Austin, LLP.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
MDL 2672: Court Rules on Rule 30(B)(6) Topics in Clean Diesel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This
Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 6946, 6947, 6948 CONSUMER OPT-OUT
TRIAL CASES, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R.
Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has issued rulings on Rule 30(B)(6) topics.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") has declined to produce
a witness to testify about several topics that the Plaintiffs
noticed for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. In three joint letter
briefs, the Plaintiffs and VWGoA have made arguments for and
against the need for testimony on these topics.
Having considered the parties' positions, Judge Breyer rules that
although the Plaintiffs suggest that they have reason to believe
that Michael Horn, the former CEO of VWGoA, made false or
misleading statements in his October 2015 congressional testimony,
they have not identified those statements or the basis for their
beliefs. As a result, Judge Breyer will not require VWGoA to
provide a corporate witness to testify generally about whether the
company is aware of any false or misleading statements that Mr.
Horn made in his congressional testimony. That topic is overbroad
and does not describe with reasonable particularity the matters for
examination.
VWGoA need not provide a witness to testify about the truth or
falsity of all statements contained in the federal indictment of
Martin Winterkorn. The indictment is 43 pages, and the Plaintiffs
have not persuaded the Court that the requested testimony would be
proportional to the needs of the case. However, if the Plaintiffs
provide VWGoA with a reasonably tailored list of allegations from
the indictment, the Judge may require VWGoA to provide a witness to
testify about the truth or falsity of those allegations, assuming
the allegations are relevant.
The Plaintiffs do not dispute that in exchange for deposition
transcripts from factually-related consumer cases against VWGoA,
they agreed not to re-depose VWGoA on topics covered in those
depositions, absent a showing of good cause. They also do not
dispute that two of their Rule 30(b)(6) topics (topics 19 and 20)
were covered in one such prior deposition.
Judge Breyer rules that no showing of good cause has been made to
warrant an additional deposition on these topics. Although the
Plaintiffs suggest that an additional deposition is warranted given
that the prior deposition was conducted before Oliver Schmidt's
guilty plea, they have not addressed VWGoA's contention that Mr.
Schmidt's admissions in his plea, which the Plaintiffs have access
to, are consistent with VWGoA's prior deposition testimony. As the
Plaintiffs have not identified an inconsistency between Mr.
Schmidt's admissions and VWGoA's prior testimony, the Judge is not
persuaded that Mr. Schmidt's guilty plea is a changed circumstance
that warrants an additional corporate deposition of VWGoA on topics
19 and 20.
Judge Breyer orders VWGoA to provide a corporate witness to testify
about the existence of a defeat device, if any, in any car that the
company (or its parent company, Volkswagen AG) has manufactured or
sold in the United States since Dec. 1, 2015. VWGoA does not need
to provide similar testimony about the existence of a defeat
device, if any, in any car that the company (or its parent company)
has manufactured or sold in Europe since Dec. 1, 2015.
Finally, VWGoA need not provide a corporate witness to testify
about the company's sale "of any automobile as a certified
pre-owned vehicle that was purchased by VWGoA pursuant to the class
action settlement in the litigation. To the extent that VWGoA
labeled the cars that it bought back pursuant to the settlement as
"certified pre-owned," and to the extent that the labeling was
improper, there is not a "sufficient nexus" between that conduct
and the conduct that injured the Plaintiffs such that the labeling
conduct would be relevant in determining punitive damages.
A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Dec. 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Mj0cUF from Leagle.com.
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -
rob@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman - steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser - toml@hbsslaw.com - Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -
astewart@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
- tshapiro@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker - caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro
hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman , Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 1100 IDS
Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2015, pro hac
vice.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -
avague@lightfootlaw.com - Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -clucier@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III - chuck.baker@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker - chtucker@rhodesokla.com - Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -
dana.lang@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg - eisenberg@bscr-law.com - Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice,
LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. - henry.smythe@wbd-us.com - Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -McGuireWoods LLP.
MDL 2672: District Court Denies Attorney’s Fees for Mahans
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs Mahan's
Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs in the multi-district
litigation IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 6168, Mahan v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
No. 3:16-cv-03039-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC). (N.D. Cal.).
In early 2019, after remanding over 100 cases in the Volkswagen
"Clean Diesel" Multi-District Litigation to state court, the
District Court denied requests by plaintiffs in the remanded cases
for awards of attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court
concluded that awards of fees and costs were not warranted because
the defendants' arguments for removal, although lacking merit, were
not objectively unreasonable.
Plaintiffs in one of the remanded cases, John and Judy Mahan,
assert that certain unusual circumstances in their case warrant
reconsideration of whether an award of fees and costs is
appropriate.
The District Court has considered the Mahans' arguments and finds
them unpersuasive.
First, the Mahans maintain that not all defendants consented to the
removal of their case. They argue that this lack of joinder made
removal objectively unreasonable. Contrary to the Mahans'
contention, the record does not support that joinder was lacking.
Counsel for two of the three defendants filed a notice of removal
and declared that all defendants consent to removal of this action.
Removal was not objectively unreasonable on lack-of-joinder
grounds.
Second, the Mahans argue that the defendants waived their right of
removal because, prior to removal, they initiated discovery in
state court and filed a petition to include the Mahans in
coordinated state court proceeding. This pre-removal conduct by
the defendants fell short of litigating the merits of the Mahans'
claims. It was thus insufficient to waive the defendants' right of
removal. Removal was not objectively unreasonable on waiver
grounds.
As removal of the Mahans' case was not objectively unreasonable, an
award of fees and costs is unwarranted, the District Court opines.
The Mahans' motion for fees and costs is DENIED, Judge Breyer
rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/s7j6s2s from Leagle.com
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey
-rob@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman- steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser - toml@hbsslaw.com - Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -
astewart@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
- tshapiro@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker - caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro
hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman - Charles.Zimmerman@zimmreed.com -
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -
avague@lightfootlaw.com -Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -clucier@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III - chuck.baker@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker - chtucker@rhodesokla.com - Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -
dana.lang@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg - eisenberg@bscr-law.com - Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. - henry.smythe@wbd-us.com - Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice
MEDLEY LLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley LLC continues to face a consolidated class action currently
pending in Virginia, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on
February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and
Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the
"Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class
Actions, the "Class Action Complaints").
The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.
The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended);
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in
Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1
year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by
American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in
Class Action 1.
In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives
claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various
times from February 2015 through April 2018.
In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff
representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan
in 2017.
By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes.
On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October 29, 2018,
Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
of all claims.
The Company said, "Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube
never made any loans or provided financing to, or had any other
relationship with, American Web Loan. Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management,
Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube are seeking
indemnification from American Web Loan, various affiliates, and
other parties with respect to the claims in the Class Action
Complaints. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Brook Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class
Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously."
Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors. The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies
in the United States that have revenues between US$50 million and
US$1 billion.
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: DeSalvo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, INC., a Texas corporation; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00183 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7,
2020), is brought to secure redress against the Defendants for
their failure to design, construct, maintain and operate their Web
site to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Company's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
https://www.menswearhouse.com/, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act, the Plaintiff says. Because the Defendant's Web site is
not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.
The Defendants' Web site provides consumers with access to
information about store locations, gift cards, reward programs,
online reservations, tuxedo and suit rentals, custom tailoring,
shipping and returns.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
MIDWEST COMMUNICATION: Seward Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Seward and Isaac Mesner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Midwest Communication Services, Inc.
and Dish Network Service, L.L.C., Case No. 0:20-cv-00093-JRT-KMM
(D. Minn., Jan. 7, 2020), seeks overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent
contractors and failed to pay them one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 and 48 in a
workweek, says the complaint. Instead, the Defendants paid them on
a piece-rate/per task basis with no overtime premium. The
Defendants also made unlawful deductions from the pay of the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as installation
technicians.
Midwest Communication Services, Inc. is a satellite installation
provider for Dish and provides satellite installation services to
Dish customers throughout the state of Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Jay E. Eidsness, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-256-3200
Facsimile: 612-338-4878
Email: fisher@nka.com
jeidsness@nka.com
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Summary Judgment Denied in Hill Inmates Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brenda Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned PERRY
HILL and JAMES ROGERS, both individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY,
MICHAEL AMATO, and MICHAEL FRANKO, Defendants, Case No.
9:14-cv-00933 (BKS/DJS). (N.D.N.Y.).
Perry Hill and James Rogers commenced the conditions-of-confinement
class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendants County
of Montgomery; Michael Amato; and Michael Franko. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants failed to provide adequate nutrition while
they were in the Montgomery County Jail (MCJ) in Fultonville, New
York, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Montgomery County Jail (MCJ) is a 177-bed facility that houses
approximately 1,000 pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners each
year. Defendant Michael Amato was the Sheriff of Montgomery County
and in charge of the MCJ through 2018. Defendant Michael Franko
was the jail administrator, and supervised MCJ through 2015.
Robert Barbuti, the MCJ jail administrator since 2016, is not a
defendant in the case.
Plaintiffs Hill and Rogers are inmates of MCJ.
Defendants sought summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs opposed the summary judgment motion. In support of
their opposition to the motion, the Plaintiffs submitted the
deposition testimony of several other individuals (pretrial
detainees and convicted prisoners) who spent more than two weeks in
MCJ during the proposed class period. They include the testimonies
of Kenneth Crouse, Joanne Strobel, Robert Pettit, David Canales,
Carolyn Lee Ardizzone, Kyle Edick, Andre Cruz, Robert Staley, Eric
Engle, and Joseph Chirico.
Defendants objected to several exhibits Plaintiffs submitted in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment on the ground that
they are inadmissible. The exhibits include inmate grievances, a
letter from "T. Hayes," class member surveys, a 2012 grievance
response from the Commission of Corrections, a photograph of class
member Robert Reece, and Plaintiff's expert report. Defendants
argue that they are inadmissible because "they are nothing more
than unsworn statements" and have not been "attested to for the
truthfulness of the assertions contained therein."
The Court points out that the inmate grievances have not been
presented in admissible form, but that fault may be cured easily
upon proper authentication at trial. Additionally, to the extent
Defendants challenge the grievances as hearsay, the Court has
considered them not for the truth of the statements they contain,
but as evidence that Amato and Franko had notice that there were
complaints about the food at MCJ. In any event, because Franko and
Amato themselves testified that were aware of the grievances or
inmates' complaints regarding food, even if the Court were to
disregard the grievances, the outcome at this stage would be the
same. Thus, Defendants' objection to the inmate grievances are
without merit, the Court opines.
The Court however has not considered the report of Heidi Jay Silver
(the Plaintiffs' expert) in determining whether Plaintiffs have
raised a material issue of fact requiring trial.
Defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that the evidence
fails to establish a conditions of confinement violation. A
convicted prisoner's conditions of confinement claim is governed by
the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
To establish a Section 1983 claim for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement a plaintiff must show (1) that
objectively, the deprivation suffered was sufficiently serious that
he was denied the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities
and (2) that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to the
challenged conditions. Although the first -- objective -- prong is
the same under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the second,
"subjective" or "mens rea prong," differs; it is defined
subjectively under the Eighth Amendment, and objectively under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
As to the objective prong, the parties' arguments demonstrate the
presence of factual issues as to the food provided at MCJ, the
Court finds. Under such circumstances, summary judgment is
inappropriate, Judge Sannes holds.
The Court notes that Plaintiffs, all of whom were in MCJ for at
least two weeks, have adduced evidence that three to four times per
week, portions were halved, two to three times per week gravies and
sauces were watered-down and that some of the food served
regularly, including chicken and other meats, for example, was of
such poor quality as to be inedible, that the vegetables lacked
nutritional value and that the kitchen at times failed to provide
any substitution for planned menu items.
As to the subjective prong, the Court notes that Plaintiff have
provided sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable factfinder to
conclude that Amato, the Sheriff in charge of the jail, and Franko,
who was jail administrator, were aware that the food provided to
the inmates was inadequate, endangered their physical health, and
deprived them of the basic human need for adequate sustenance.
There are, therefore, material issues of fact as to whether
Defendants acted intentionally in failing to provide adequate
nutrition and calories to MCJ inmates, or to mitigate the risks the
deficient diet posed to the inmates, even though they knew that
inadequacies in the food provided posed "an excessive risk to the
health or safety" of inmates who were completely dependent on the
meals provided at MCJ for their nutritional sustenance, the Court
finds.
Thus, material issues of fact require trial with respect to the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claims.
Crediting Plaintiffs' version of the facts, a reasonable factfinder
could conclude that they knew of the complaints that the food was
inadequate to sustain the inmates, and yet, Amato and Franko made a
conscious decision to maintain the status quo after
"double-checking" the menu and reminding the kitchen staff to serve
uniform portions, the Court further finds.
Amato and Franko argued that even if Plaintiffs can establish
personal involvement, they are entitled to qualified immunity.
In view of the material issues of fact regarding the meals provided
at MCJ and whether they were nutritionally adequate, the Court
concludes that questions concerning inmates' reaction to the diet
go to the question of damages -- not liability -- and therefore do
not provide a basis for qualified immunity.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Montgomery County is liable under
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for the allegedly unconstitutional conditions
in MCJ. Defendants seek summary judgment dismissing the municipal
liability claim, arguing that there is no evidence of a "formal
policy at the jail or a specific action or decision by an official
responsible for establishing final policy to not feed the inmates."
Plaintiffs oppose summary judgment.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have raised a material issue of
fact as to whether Amato's failure to act in response to the
repeated complaints regarding inadequate portions and that the
inmates in the jail were hungry, was done with deliberate
indifference as to the known or obvious consequences chronic
underfeeding would pose to the inmates at MCJ. Accordingly,
Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the municipal
liability claim against Montgomery County is denied.
Also, Defendants note that the Court previously dismissed
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief (Second
Cause of Action), but that they are present in the Amended
Complaint, which Plaintiffs filed after the Court's dismissal.
In sum, Judge Sannes ordered that:
(1) Defendants' objections are GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part;
(2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and
(3) the Second Cause of Action is stricken from the Amended
Complaint.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yf2qudvw from Leagle.com
Perry Hill, both individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elmer R. Keach, III ,
Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C., 1 Pine West Plaza,
Suite 109, Albany, NY 12205, Jason S. Rathod -
jrathod@classlawdc.com - Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, pro hac vice,
Maria K. Dyson , Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C., 1
Pine West Plaza, Suite 109, Albany, NY 12205, & Nicholas A.
Migliaccio - nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.
James Rogers, Plaintiff, represented by Elmer R. Keach, III , Law
Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C., Maria K. Dyson , Law
Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C. & Nicholas A. Migliaccio ,
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.
County of Montgomery, Michael Amato, Sheriff, Montgomery County &
Michael Franko, Jail Administrator, Montgomery County Jail,
Defendants, represented by Chelsea E. Manocchi -
cmanocchi@goldbergsegalla.com - Goldberg Segalla, LLP & Jonathan M.
Bernstein - jbernstein@goldbergsegalla.com - Goldberg, Segalla Law
Firm.
MURAD LLC: Conner Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Murad, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Murad, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00113 (E.D. N. Y., Jan. 7, 2020).
Murad, LLC is sells skincare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Mylan N.V. (NASDAQ: MYL) between May 9, 2018 and May
6, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Mylan investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Mylan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1744.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Mylan's Morgantown facility was in significant violation
of the FDA's Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations; (2)
Mylan would need to engage in a massive restructuring and
remediation program; (3) Mylan's North American Segment would be
substantially impacted by said program, which would in turn
materially impact Mylan's financial health; (4) Mylan lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; and (5) as a
result, Mylan's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1744.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Website: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Adeyemi PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Louis Adeyemi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Villanova University, Defendants, was
transferred from Indiana Southern with the assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-04655 to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on January 7, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00047.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Avery PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Charles Avery, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Defendant, was transferred from Indiana
Southern with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-04785 to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
January 7, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00055.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bundy PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shahid Bundy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Defendant, was transferred from Indiana
Southern with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-04658 to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
January 7, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00050.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lyon PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Austin Lyon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Defendant, was transferred from Indiana
Southern with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-04739 to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
January 7, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00053.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Patrick PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Patrick, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Defendants, was transferred from Indiana Southern with the assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-04656 to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 7, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-00049.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Rucker PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Reggie Rucker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Bethune-Cookman University, Inc,
Defendants, was transferred from Indiana Southern with the assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-04740 to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 7, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-00054.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Stallworth PI Suit Transferred to Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Byron Stallworth, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Wittenberg University, Defendants, was
transferred from Indiana Southern with the assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-04738 to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on January 7, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00052.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NET 1 UEPS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: UEPS) between
September 12, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for UEPS investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the UEPS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1738.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; (2) the Company had misclassified its
investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited; (3) the Company's
financial statements for the fiscal year 2018 overstated its
income; and (4) as a result, UEPS's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1738.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Website: www.rosenlegal.com
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]
NEW AGE BEVERAGES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Age Beverages
Corporation. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. New Age Beverages Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00085 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
New Age Beverages is an organic and natural beverages company
intending to become the world's leading source for functional RTD
options.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Fax: (718) 504-7555
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
NEW YORK: Court Delays Dissemination of Notice to Guadagna Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SALVATORE GUADAGNA, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD
ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03397 (ADS) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York entered an order on the Plaintiff's motion for the
direction of notice to the class members pursuant to Rule
23(c)(2)(A).
On Aug. 8, 2019, the District Court certified a class action
commenced by Salvatore Guadagna against the New York Health
Department pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
Presently before the Court is a motion by the Plaintiff, submitted
at the instruction of the Court, for the direction of notice to the
class members. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and
concurs with the class counsel that dissemination of the proposed
notice would be appropriate under the circumstances.
The class consists of a vulnerable population who would benefit
from being informed about the status of their claims and the
knowledge that they are represented by qualified counsel who is
available to provide them with free legal services. Courts
traditionally permit dissemination of notice by mail to the classes
certified under Rule 23(b)(2). Moreover, courts strongly favor
individualized notice, even when it will require considerable
effort and time to find the appropriate records.
The Defendant's only objection to the proposed notice appears to be
based on the potential reaction of the class members to receiving
notice of the certified class. In the Defendant's view, because
the Court has not yet decided the merits of the class's claims, it
would be premature and sow confusion and consternation among the
class members to inform them of the pendency of the class action
before the Court finds they are entitled to relief. More
adequately stated, it believes it would be better to keep the class
members in the dark about the status of their claims.
Judge Spatt vehemently disagrees with the Defendant's position.
The Defendant references none of the discretionary factors
traditionally considered by courts when assessing whether to
disseminate notice, such as an undue burden in collecting the
necessary information. Nor does the Defendant cite authority
supporting the conclusion that it would be actively desirable to
avoid appraising class members of their legal rights. The absence
of such citations is totally unsurprising, as it is hard to fathom
a situation where notice would be appropriate if the Court adopted
the Defendant's logic.
More frankly, Judge Spatt finds that it contradicts the entire
spirit of the class action mechanism to suggest that individuals
should not be aware of their membership in a class or
representation by counsel based solely on the faulty assumption
that they cannot comprehend the difference between a pending action
and a final judgment. Considering the Defendant offers no
substantive objection to the content of the proposed notice, the
Judge will not exercise discretion against dissemination based
solely on the Defendant's paternalism.
As for the Defendant's request for additional time to move to amend
the class definition prior to sending the notices, the parties
should be able to agree to an amended class definition without
resorting to motion practice, considering both sides concur that
the class should only encompass people who lost care when they
transferred out of GuildNet before the implementation of the
Transition Policy. Therefore, the Judge will delay ordering
dissemination of the notices to provide an opportunity to meet and
confer. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the
Defendant must file the contemplated motion no later than 14 days
from the issuance of the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Memorandum
of Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/wyw1d6 from
Leagle.com.
Salvatore Guadagna, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Wait Taylor
-- btaylor@nylag.org -- NYLAG, Elizabeth A. Jois -- ejois@nylag.org
-- New York Legal Assistance Group, Jane Greengold Stevens & Julia
Grossman Russell -- jrussell@nylag.org -- New York Legal Assistance
Group.
Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Defendant, represented by Dorothy O. Nese, Office of the
New York State Attorney General.
GuildNet, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Jordan B. Leader
-- jleader@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose.
NEWELL BRANDS: Mahoney Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEWELL BRANDS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00118-TJS (E.D.
Pa., Jan. 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to enforce
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
By failing to make its Web site--http://www.marmot.com/--available
in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the
Defendant, a public accommodation subject to Title III, deprives
blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among these Americans that Title III was meant to redress, the
Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff has attempted to use the Defendant's Web site at
least once in the past. Unfortunately, because of the Defendant's
failure to build its Web site in a manner that is compatible with
screen reader programs, he is unable to understand, and thus is
denied the benefit of, much of the content and services he wishes
to access or use, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.
The Defendant is an Athletic Wear and Sporting Goods retailer that
owns and operates the Web site, offering features, which should
allow all consumers to access its goods and services throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Fax: (267) 319-1993
Email: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com
OBESITY RESEARCH: Weight Loss Supplement Class Gains $4.6M Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that a challenge to the claims about effectiveness
of weight loss pills has settled for $4.6 million.
Fred Duran and other, later-joined plaintiffs filed suit against
Obesity Research Institute, Continuity Products and related
individuals in 2013 alleging that the defendants falsely advertised
Lipozene weight loss pills as a "weight-loss breakthrough" that
would "get rid of pounds of body fat."
In reality, the supplements are neither safe nor an effective
treatment for weight loss, the plaintiffs said, because their main
ingredient--glucomannan--is not absorbed by the human body.
The class action complaint cited violations of California's False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.
After several years of litigation, the parties reached a deal that
will provide class members (purchasers of the pills between August
10, 2012, and October 28, 2019) with $15 per bottle for up to four
units with proof of purchase; those without a receipt can claim $7
for one unit.
The settlement fund will also cover administrative costs,
attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $1.4 million, and incentive
payments of $7,500 each for Duran and the other two named
plaintiffs.
In addition to monetary relief, the defendants also agreed to
change their marketing by removing the following statements from
commercials and other advertising materials: "Lipozene is so
powerful . . ." and "Lipozene is specifically designed to target
fat."
Why it matters: Although the defendants continue to deny all
allegations of wrongdoing and to disclaim all liability, they will,
pursuant to the settlement terms, pay out a total of $4.6 million
and tweak their marketing for the weight loss product. [GN]
ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Jaline Fenwick, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Orthopedic Specialty
Institute, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-mc-00117 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Jan. 6, 2020, and assigned Case No. 0:20-mc-60023-RAR.
The Orthopedic Specialty Institute, formerly The Lyman Knee Clinic,
is a specialty orthopedic practice focusing on the care and
treatment of knee, hand and sports-related injuries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
Hiraldo P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
PARETEUM CORPORATION: Faces Baxley Securities Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Baxley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PARETEUM CORPORATION, ROBERT TURNER, and EDWARD
O'DONNELL, Case No. 2:20-cv-00022-SGC (N.D. Ala., Jan. 7, 2020), is
brought on behalf of persons or entities, who owned, purchased, or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Pareteum securities between
December 26, 2017, and October 21, 2019, inclusive, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On March 12, 2019, Pareteum released earnings for the fourth
quarter of 2018 and for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.
Pareteum reported $14.3 million in total revenue for the quarter,
and $32.4 million in total revenue for the fiscal year. On March
18, 2019, Pareteum filed a Form 10-K with the SEC, which provided
its financial results and position for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018. The 2018 10-K was signed by Defendants Turner
and O'Donnell. The 2018 10-K contained signed certifications
pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Turner and
O'Donnell attesting to the accurACV of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to Pareteum's internal control
over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.
The Plaintiff alleges that Pareteum's statements were materially
false and/or misleading, because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to Pareteum's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Pareteum improperly and inaccurately recognized revenue for
certain customer transactions; (2) Pareteum's financial statements
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2018, and quarters of
ending March 31, 2019, and June 30, 2019, were false and could not
be relied on; and (3) consequently, Pareteum's public statements
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
On October 21, 2019, after the market closed, Pareteum issued a
press release that it would restate its previously issued financial
statements for the full 2018 fiscal year, and for the first and
second quarter 2019.
On this news, shares of Pareteum fell $0.4401 per share or over 59%
to close at $0.2992 per share on October 22, 2019.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Pareteum securities during the Class
Period.
Pareteum is a publicly traded corporation and its shares trade on
the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "TEUM".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew P. Campbell, Esq.
J. Harris Hagood, Esq.
CAMPBELL PARTNERS, LLC
505 20th Street North, Suite 1600
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 224-0750
Email: andy@campbellpartnerslaw.com
harris@campbellpartners.com
- and -
J. Mark White, Esq.
WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD P.C.
2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 323-1888
Email: mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Certification of Class Sought in Thomas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Thomas moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled BRANDI THOMAS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PATENAUDE & FELIX,
A.P.C., TD BANK USA, N.A., and TARGET CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-00012 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff
(and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").
While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).
The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.
As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
PAUL J. HOOTEN: Singer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul J. Hooten &
Associates, PLLC. The case is styled as Shea Singer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paul
J. Hooten & Associates, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00082
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Paul J Hooten & Associates is a law firm providing full service
legal advice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
PG&E CORP: Former Paradise Mayor Files Class Action Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Action News Now reports that former mayor Jody Jones filed a class
action claim against PG&E for private road damage repairs in
Paradise, California.
The claim includes all of the private roads in the town that the
trucks and crews damaged during Camp Fire recovery, according to
Jones.
"It's something that needs to happen and there's really no funding
for it," says Jones, "and people don't have the money to fix the
roads as well as rebuild their homes."
There are about 200 property owners who have signed onto the
claim.
Jones says they are trying to get one homeowner representing each
private road in town.[GN]
PNC BANK: Thomas Sues Over TCPA Violation and Privacy Invasion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Thomas, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. 5:20-cv-00038 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in
negligently, and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff for
marketing purposes on her cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy.
According to the complaint, at no time did the Plaintiff provide
her current cellular telephone number to the Defendant through any
medium, and in fact, Plaintiff had never heard of PNC prior to PNC
calling her.
PNC called Ms. Thomas' cellular telephone using an artificial or
prerecorded voice message in an effort to convince her to pay for
consumer credit products. Through the Defendant's conduct, the
Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in
privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of
California.
PNC is a national association whose primary business address is in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
nicholas@kazlg.com
- and -
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: jason@kazlg.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Jan. 27 Class Action Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Dec. 1, 2019 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Prudential Financial, Inc. ("Prudential" or "the Company")
(NYSE:PRU) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
15, 2019 and August 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 27, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Prudential failed to account for
worsening mortality experience in its individual life business
segment when making its reserve assumptions. Far from being
over-reserved, the Company did not have sufficient reserves to pay
future policy benefits. The Company overstated net income on the
basis of flawed assumptions and calculations. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Prudential, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents
investors around the world and specializes in securities class
action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN]
PULASKI COUNTY SSD: Richards Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Richards, Norma L. Dixon, and Cynthia D'Abadie,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00250-KGB
(E.D. Ark., Jan. 7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt contract employees lawful
contracted rates and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
According to the complaint, the Pulaski County Special School
District has a common policy that fails to pay its non-exempt
contract employees the hourly amount they contract for, nor the
lawful amount of overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant did not pay
the Plaintiffs or other non-exempt contract employees a lawful
overtime wage of one and one-half times their regular rate for all
hours in excess of 40 in a week.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as non-exempt hourly staff
based in the Little Rock headquarters of the district and across
the district facilities.
Pulaski County Special School District is a school district that
employs many non-exempt hourly employees in Pulaski County,
Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chris W. Burks, Esq.
Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
WH LAW, PLLC
1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 891-6000
Email: brandon@whlawoffices.com
chris@whlawoffices.com
RARE BEAUTY: Slade Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Rare Beauty Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Rare Beauty Brands,
Inc. doing business as: Patchology, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00126 (S.D. N. Y., Jan. 7, 2020).
Rare Beauty Brands acquires and incubates high potential indie
beauty brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
REALREAL INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 24, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of The RealReal, Inc.
("RealReal" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REAL) investors who
purchased common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
June 2019 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.
In June 2019, RealReal completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 17.25 million shares at $20.00 per share.
On November 5, 2019, CNBC published a report based on "nearly three
dozen former employees" and "internal company documents that show
not everything is authenticated by an expert" and that "employees
work under strict quotas that lead to fakes being sold on the
site."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.80, or 19%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $19.37 on November 6,
2019. Since the IPO, RealReal stock has traded as low as $12.80 per
share, a significant decline from the $20 IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's employees
received little training on how to spot fake items; (2) that the
Company's strict quotas on its employees exacerbated product
authentication issues; (3) that consequently, the potential for
counterfeit or mislabeled items to make it through Company's
authentication process was higher than disclosed; and (4) that, as
a result, defendants' statements about RealReal's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased RealReal common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement, you may move the Court no later than
January 24, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
Contact:
Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
Website: www.glancylaw.com
Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, lportnoy@glancylaw.com
[GN]
REDNERS MARKETS: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA
----------------------------------------------
Redner's Markets, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Redner's Markets, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00119-JMY (E.D. Pa., Jan. 7, 2020).
Redner's Markets, Inc. is an American supermarket chain that
currently operates 44 Warehouse Markets and 20 Redner's Quick
Shoppe convenience stores located in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and
Maryland. Redner's Warehouse Markets has a distribution warehouse
located in Maidencreek Township, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg
Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Gabelli Securities Suit in D. Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli Dividend & Income Trust, The
Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., The Gabelli Focus Five Fund, The Gabelli
Multimedia Trust Inc., The Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., GAMCO
International SICAV and GAMCO Asset Management Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. RESIDEO
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., MICHAEL G.
NEFKENS and JOSEPH D. RAGAN III, Case No. 0:20-cv-00094 (D. Minn.,
Jan. 7, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' misstatements and omissions
before, during and after a transaction whereby Honeywell combined
unrelated business units within its various divisions and "spun"
them off to Honeywell shareholders as a repackaged publicly-traded
"stand-alone" company named Resideo.
Each investor, who owned Honeywell common stock as of the October
16, 2018 record date of the Spin-Off, received one share of Resideo
for every six shares of Honeywell that investor owned. Resideo
shares began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on a
"when-issued" basis on October 15, 2018.
The Plaintiffs allege that Honeywell had a massive financial motive
to engage in the Spin-Off. By doing so, Honeywell was able to
hand-select underperforming businesses to transfer into Resideo.
The Resideo Defendants continued to represent to investors that,
among other things: (i) there was strong demand for Resideo's
"connected" home products, including the Company's line of smart
thermostats; (ii) Resideo remained competitive in the sale of
nonconnected products; and (iii) Resideo had a "Mature, Integrated
Supply Chain" that "Continued the Application of Best-in-Class
Honeywell Operating System." However, by March 2019, only five
months after the Spin-Off, the Defendants were forced partially to
reveal that all was in fact not well with the newly-created
Resideo, the Plaintiffs say.
In reporting the Company's fourth quarter and full-year 2018
financial results, Resideo announced its intention to lower its
2019 financial forecasts and further revealed a 20% decrease in
profit for the Product & Solutions division. This announcement
caused Resideo's common stock price to decline by $5.79 per share,
to close at $18.96 on March 7, 2019. Nevertheless, the stock price
remained inflated as the Defendants continued to mislead the
market, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Resideo common stock during the Class
Period.
Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices at Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
Email: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 710-5960
Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
- and -
Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10171
Phone: (212) 894-7200
Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
Email: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
RICHARD SPENCER: Dismissal Motion in Manker Veterans Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Haight Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned TYSON MANKER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and NATIONAL VETERANS COUNCIL FOR LEGAL
REDRESS, on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-372 (CSH). (D. Conn.).
The class action was filed on behalf of United States Navy and
United States Marine Corps veterans who were allegedly denied
discharge upgrades by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) in a
manner violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the
Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs Tyson Manker and "John Doe" were both discharged from
the Marines with less-than-Honorable discharges, and have
subsequently attempted without success to obtain from the Navy
upgrades to Honorable discharges.
The class sought to be certified by the named Plaintiffs consisted
of Navy, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps, and Marine Corps Reserve
veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan era who (a) were discharged
from service with less-than-Honorable discharges; (b) have not
received discharge upgrades to Honorable; and (c) have diagnoses of
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), traumatic brain injury
("TBI"), PTSD-related conditions, or records documenting one or
more symptoms of PTSD, TBI, or PTSD-related conditions at the time
of discharge, those conditions or symptoms being attributable to
their military service.
The Defendant is the Secretary of the Navy, the Executive Branch
individual responsible for the NDRB. The gravamen of Plaintiffs'
complaint is that the NDRB fails to follow the directive of a
memorandum issued by then-Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel
mandating that "liberal consideration" be given to diagnoses of
PTSD and similar mental health conditions; and, to records
indicating symptoms of those conditions.
Plaintiffs seek a class-wide injunction whose purpose is to correct
the Navy's conduct in that regard. The only relief sought by
Plaintiffs is equitable in nature.
The Court certified the class in a previous opinion (Manker v.
Spencer, 329 F.R.D. 110 (D. Conn. 2018)). The class, as certified,
includes veterans who served between October 7, 2001, and the
present, were discharged from the Navy, Navy Reserves, Marine
Corps, or Marine Corps Reserve with less-than-Honorable statuses,
have not received upgrades of their discharge statuses to Honorable
from the NDRB; and, have diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, or other related
mental health conditions, or records documenting one or more
symptoms of PTSD, TBI, or other related mental health conditions at
the time of discharge, attributable to their military service under
the Hagel Memo standards of liberal or special consideration.
The case is now before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Complaint, or in the alternative, to remand the case to the
Navy for further administrative action. The Plaintiff class
opposes that motion in its entirety. In addition, the parties have
filed cross-motions to govern the nature, scope, and effect of
pre-trial discovery. The questions concerning discovery, which are
substantial and vigorously litigated, arise only if the Defendant's
motion to dismiss fails.
Judge Haight entered a Ruling in late 2019, which resolves these
pending motions.
Judge Haight, in his November 7, 2019 ruling, ordered that:
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is DENIED.
2. Defendant's alternative motion for a remand is GRANTED IN
PART, in that the applications of Plaintiffs Manker and Doe
for discharge upgrades are remanded to the Naval Discharge
Review Board ("NDRB") for further administrative
consideration. Otherwise, Defendant's motion for a remand
is DENIED.
3. The NDRB must issue its decisions following the
consideration on remand not later than March 7, 2020.
Counsel for Defendant had suggested 180 days, or six months,
within which to arrive at such decisions. That is
unreasonably long. When the decisions on remand are issued,
counsel for the Parties are directed to file them with the
Court forthwith.
4. Proceedings with respect to the claims of Manker and Doe are
STAYED pending decisions on the remands directed in
paragraph two of the Order. No other proceedings are stayed.
5. Discovery in this case is not limited to the administrative
records generated by the applications of Manker and Doe.
Discovery will be supervised by Magistrate Judge Spector
pursuant to a separate Order of Reference.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Rulings
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ygxaf453 from Leagle.com
Tyson Manker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & National Veterans Council for Legal Redress, on behalf
of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica A. Martinez -
jmartinez@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP, Michael J. Wishnie -
michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org - Jerome N. Frank Legal Services,
Jeremy M. Creelan - jcreelan@jenner.com - Jenner & Block, LLP,
Jeremy H. Ershow - jershow@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP, Nicole
Taykhman - ntaykhman@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP & Susan J.
Kohlmann - skohlmann@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP.
Richard V Spencer, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant, represented by
David Christopher Nelson , U.S. Attorney's Office.
SELECT SENIOR: Heidarpour Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Senior
Insurance, LLC. The case is styled as Fred Heidarpour, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Select
Senior Insurance, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00133-KAW (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 6, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Select Senior Insurance is a Veteran owned and operated insurance
brokerage leveraging the power of a call center as well providing
independent field agents with top contracts for leading carriers in
the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement, and Life Insurance
space.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
SIERRA INCOME: Awaits Court OK of MCC Settlement, Fee Application
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Income Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a decision by
the Delaware Court of Chancery with respect to approval of either
the stipulation to settle the MCC Stockholder Action or FrontFour's
motion to award plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees in the amount
of US$22 million and expenses in the amount of US$420,334.97 (Fee
Application) remains pending.
On February 11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was
commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery by FrontFour Capital
Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd. (together, "FrontFour"),
captioned In re Medley Capital Corporation Stockholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 2019-0100-KSJM, against defendants Brook Taube, Seth
Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, the Company, MCC, MCC Advisors
LLC, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC. The complaint, as amended
on February 12, 2019, alleged that the individuals named as
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to MCC's stockholders in
connection with the MCC Merger, and that MDLY, the Company, MCC
Advisors LLC, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought
to enjoin the vote of MCC stockholders on the proposed merger and
enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of the MCC Merger
Agreement. The Court held a trial on the plaintiffs' claims on
March 6-7, 2019 and issued a Memorandum Opinion (the "Decision") on
March 11, 2019. The Delaware Court of Chancery denied FrontFour's
requests to (i) permanently enjoin the MCC Merger and (ii) require
MCC to conduct a "shopping process" for MCC on terms proposed by
FrontFour in its complaint. The Court held that MCC's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the MCC Merger,
but rejected FrontFour's claim that the Company aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duties. The Court ordered the
defendants to issue corrective disclosures consistent with the
Decision, and enjoined a vote of MCC's stockholders on the MCC
Merger until such disclosures have been made and stockholders have
had the opportunity to assimilate this information.
On March 20, 2019, another purported stockholder class action was
commenced by Stephen Altman against Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff
Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, Mark Lerdal, and
John E. Mack in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Altman
v. Taube, Case No. 2019-0219 (the "Altman Action"). The complaint
alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders of MCC in connection with the vote of MCC stockholders
on the proposed mergers.
On April 8, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a
stipulation consolidating the MCC Stockholder Action and the Altman
Action, designating the amended complaint in the MCC Stockholder
Action as the operative complaint, and designating the plaintiffs
in the MCC Stockholder Action and their counsel the lead plaintiffs
and lead plaintiffs' counsel, respectively.
On April 15, 2019, certain parties reached agreement on the
principal terms of a settlement of the MCC Stockholder Action,
which were contained in a term sheet, dated April 15, 2019 (the
"Settlement Term Sheet").
On July 29, 2019, MDLY entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
(and, as amended, on August 8, 2019, the "Stipulation") by and
among MCC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin
Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, MCC
Advisors LLC, Medley LLC, and Medley Group LLC (the "Medley
Parties"), on the one hand, and FrontFour, on behalf of itself and
a class of similarly situated stockholders of MCC, on the other
hand, in connection with the MCC Stockholder Action.
The Stipulation provides for the settlement of all claims brought
against the Medley Parties in the MCC Stockholder Action. Under
the Stipulation, MCC agreed to seek to obtain the agreement and/or
consent of the Company to effect certain amendments to (i) the MCC
Merger Agreement and (ii) the MDLY Merger Agreement (together with
the MCC Merger Agreement, the "Merger Agreements"), which have been
reflected in the revised Merger Agreements annexed to the
Stipulation. The Stipulation also provides for, if the MCC Merger
is consummated, the creation of a settlement fund, consisting of
US$17 million in cash and US$30 million of the Company's stock,
with the number of shares of the Company's stock to be calculated
using the pro forma NAV reported in the future proxy supplement
describing the amendments to the MCC Merger Agreement, which will
be distributed to eligible members of the Settlement Class (as
defined in the Stipulation). Under the Stipulation, MDLY also
consented to certain actions, including consenting to certain
amendments to the Merger Agreements That have been reflected in the
revised Merger Agreements annexed to the Stipulation. In addition,
in connection with the Stipulation, on July 29, 2019, MCC entered
into a Governance Agreement with FrontFour Capital Group LLC,
FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., FrontFour Capital Corp., FrontFour
Opportunity Fund, David A. Lorber, Stephen E. Loukas and Zachary R.
George, pursuant to which, among other matters, FrontFour is
subject to customary standstill restrictions and required to vote
in favor of the MCC Merger at a meeting of stockholders to approve
the Amended MCC Merger Agreement.
The Stipulation also provides for mutual releases between and among
FrontFour and the Settlement Class, on the one hand, and the Medley
Parties, on the other hand, of all claims that were or could have
been asserted in the MCC Stockholder Action. The Medley Parties
will also release all claims arising out of or relating to the
prosecution and settlement of the MCC Stockholder Action and all
claims that were or could have been asserted (other than claims
against the Highland Parties, as defined in the Stipulation) in the
litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Medley Capital Corporation
v. FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-02055-LTS
(S.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal Action"), and FrontFour and the Settlement
Class will release all claims arising out of or relating to the
prosecution and settlement of the Federal Action.
The Stipulation further provides that MCC and FrontFour shall work
together in good faith to agree to supplemental disclosures
relating to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreements
consistent with the Decision.
The Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
On September 26, 2019, FrontFour filed a motion seeking an order
approving the Stipulation, and also moved for the Delaware Court of
Chancery to award plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees in the amount
of US$22 million and expenses in the amount of US$420,334.97 (the
"Fee Application"). The Delaware Court of Chancery held a hearing
to consider the Stipulation and the Fee Application on October 24,
2019. The parties submitted supplemental briefing with respect to
the Stipulation on October 31, 2019. To date, the Delaware Court
of Chancery has not issued a decision with respect to approval of
the Stipulation or the Fee Application.
SIERRA INCOME: Still Defends Anderson Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Income Corporation continues to defend a purported
stockholder class action styled, Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen
R. Byers et al., in New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
14, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.
On April 5, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was
commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, by alleged stockholders of Sierra Income Corporation,
captioned Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al., Index
No. 652006/2019. Named as defendants are Stephen R. Byers, Oliver
T. Kane, Valerie Lancaster-Beal, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Sierra
Income Corporation, and Sierra Management, Inc.
The complaint alleges that the individuals named as defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders of Sierra Income
Corporation in connection with the proposed mergers of Medley
Capital Corporation with and into Sierra Income Corporation and
Medley Management Inc. with and into Sierra Management, Inc., and
that Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Sierra Income Corporation, and Sierra
Management, Inc. aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposed
mergers or, in the alternative, to recover money damages in an
unspecified amount.
On October 9, 2019, the Court entered a stipulated scheduling
order, which provides that the plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint by November 8, 2019, and that the defendants' time to
respond to the amended complaint will be sixty days following the
filing of the amended complaint.
On November 8, 2019, pursuant to the scheduling order, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that reiterated the
allegations of the original complaint and added allegations
concerning the new mergers, including that the new mergers are
"even more financially unfavorable to Sierra" than the old mergers
and that under the new mergers, and that "Sierra would actually be
paying more for MDLY... when all consideration is taken into
account," based on the erroneous allegation that Sierra is the
party responsible for bearing the cost of the MCC settlement fund.
Plaintiffs also allege that Brook Taube and Seth Taube exercised
control over Sierra and breached fiduciary duties owed to Sierra in
that capacity.
A preliminary conference was scheduled for November 19, 2019.
The Company said, "The defendants believe the claims asserted in
the action are without merit and they intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously."
SIERRA INCOME: Still Defends Lax and Dicristino Class Suits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Income Corporation still faces two purported class actions
pending in New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.
On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by
alleged stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned,
respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No.
650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al.,
Index No. 650510/2019 (together with the Lax Action, the "New York
Actions"). Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube,
Seth Taube, Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin
Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr.,
MCC, MDLY, the Company and Merger Sub.
The complaints in each of the New York Actions allege that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger of MCC with and into the
Company, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts are sought.
On February 27, 2019, the Court entered a stipulated scheduling
order requiring that defendants respond to the complaints 45 days
following the later of (a) the stockholder vote on the proposed
merger and (b) plaintiffs' filing of a consolidated, amended
complaint.
A preliminary conference was scheduled to take place on November
19, 2019.
The Company said, "The defendants believe the claims asserted in
the New York Actions are without merit and they intend to defend
these lawsuits vigorously. At this time, we are unable to
determine whether an unfavorable outcome from these matters is
probable or remote or to estimate the amount or range of potential
loss, if any."
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Rife Sues Over Lousy Crock-Pot Pressure Cookers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Rife and Nicolle Kainrath, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions, Case No.
4:20-cv-10003-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's manufacture and sale of defective and dangerous
Crock-Pot Pressure Cookers, which explode their hot contents during
normal use due to design defects.
The lawsuit is brought for claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, Florida's breach of express and implied warranty laws,
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Negligence,
Unjust Enrichment, Strict Product Liability, and for Declaratory
and Injunctive Relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sought to capitalize on
the history of their "iconic" and trusted slow cooker brand. To do
so, the Defendant labeled and marketed their new Pressure Cooker as
"TRUSTED," proclaiming "the Crock-Pot brand is a leader in one pot
cooking" and "features a locking, air-tight lid that stays sealed
under pressure for total peace-of-mind."
Despite the Defendant's claimed dedication to quality manufacturing
and implementing safety protection features, the Defendant instead
designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold online and through
third-party retailers the Pressure Cooker that suffers from serious
and dangerous design defects, the Plaintiffs assert.
During ordinary and routine operation, the Pressure Cooker
generates extreme heat and steam. When the defect manifests itself,
however, the built-up pressure and steam trapped inside the
Pressure Cooker causes its scalding hot contents to burst and erupt
from the appliance when the lid is opened by the consumer,
resulting in significant and painful personal injury to the
consumer, according to the complaint.
The Defendant knew or should have known of the Defect but
nevertheless sold the Pressure Cooker to consumers, failed to warn
consumers of the serious safety risk posed by the Defect and
instead represented safety features would prevent the Defect from
manifesting, and failed to recall the dangerously defective
Pressure Cooker despite the risk of significant injuries to
consumers as well as the failure of the product, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Kimberly Rife is a resident of Romeoville, Illinois, who
purchased the Defendant's Pressure Cooker.
Sunbeam designs, manufactures, markets, and sells a wide range of
consumer products, including the Crock-Pot brand of kitchen
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
P.O. Box 1870
Lady Lake, FL 32158
Phone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
Email: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com
- and -
Michael R. Karnuth, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. KARNUTH
55 East Monroe St., Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 391-0203
Email: mike@karnuthlaw.com
- and -
Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
VOZZOLO LAW LLC
345 Route 17 South
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
Phone: (201) 630-8820
Email: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
TAX RISE: Watkins Sues Over Marketing Texts That Violate TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micah Watkins, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. TAX RISE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00029 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
7, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff through phone
calls and text messages on her cellular telephone, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In a misguided effort to solicit business, Tax Rise routinely
contacts individuals through mass telephone campaigns and text
messaging with automatic telephone dialing equipment. However, Tax
Rise regularly makes these phone calls and sends these text
messages to cellular telephones, without consent, let alone prior
express written consent, in violation of the TCPA.
Tax Rise's violations caused the Plaintiff and members of the
Classes to experience actual harm, included aggravation, nuisance,
and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of
unsolicited and harassing phone calls and text messages, as well as
the violation of their statutory rights, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Micah Watkins is resident of the State of Pennsylvania.
Tax Rise, Inc., is a California corporation, headquartered in
Irvine, California, which provides tax resolution services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Galucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
TEXAS DE BRAZIL: More Info on Agreed Chavez Dismissal Ordered
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California has issued an order for additional
information regarding stipulated dismissal of the case captioned
WENDY CHAVEZ, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS DE BRAZIL (FRESNO), et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-0502 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal.).
On Oct. 28, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of
the Plaintiff's individual and class claims and for the filing of
Second Amended Complaint that pursued a state law Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") claim. The dismissal of the individual and
class claims is based on an arbitration agreement that the
Plaintiff signed in connection with her employment with the
Defendants. The case is in its early stages and no class has been
certified and no motion for class certification has been filed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires courts to approve
the proposed voluntary dismiss of a class claim even before the
class has been certified. Therefore, when parties seek to
voluntarily dismiss class claims, the Court must be aware of
prejudice to a class and consider three factors before authorizing
a dismissal: (1) the class members' possible reliance on the filing
of the action if they are likely to know of it either because of
publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of adequate time for the
class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly
approaching statute of limitations, (3) any settlement or
concession of the class interests made by the class representative
or the counsel in order to further their own interests.
The stipulation indicates that the dismissal of the class claims is
to be without prejudice. Because the dismissal is without
prejudice, the other class members will be able to pursue claims
against the Defendants. For purposes of the third Diaz factor, the
interests of the class are not adversely affected.
With respect to the first Diaz factor, the stipulation states that
no putative class members have been given "written notice" of the
class claims or the lawsuit and the Plaintiff's counsel is unaware
of any putative class member who refrained from bringing similar
class action allegations in reliance on the existence of the class
action.
Judge Ishii is concerned with the limitations found. While he
suspects that there is little reliance on the case by putative
class members, the Judge would like additional information from the
Plaintiff's counsel. In further submissions, the Plaintiff's
counsel should address any publicity regarding the putative class
action/claims, whether it is known if the putative class members
received something other than a formal written notice" of the class
action, whether it is known if the putative class members have
foregone pursuing individual claims in light of the putative class
action, and any other information that may be relevance to the
issue of reliance.
With respect to the second Diaz factor, the stipulation does not
address any statute of limitations related issues. The Plaintiff's
counsel is directed to do so.
Once the additional information is received, the Judge will act on
the parties' stipulation.
Accordingly, Judge Ishii ordered that the Plaintiff's counsel will
provide the additional information requested regarding the first
and second Diaz factors without delay.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3vqPId from Leagle.com.
Wendy Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by David Glenn Spivak --
david@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm, Stephanie Brenna
Greenberg -- stephanie@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm &
Walter L. Haines -- whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law
Group, PC.
Texas De Brazil (Concord), a California corporation, Texas De
Brazil (Fresno) Corporation, a California corporation, Texas De
Brazil (Carlsbad) Corporation, a California corporation, Texas De
Brazil (Irvine), a California corporation & Texas De Brazil
(Oxnard), a California corporation, Defendants, represented by Adam
J. Fiss -- afiss@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Marlene S.
Muraco -- mmuraco@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Uliana A.
Kozeychuk -- ukozeychuk@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Weinreich Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued
an Order and Opinion granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned Gary Weinreich,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a California
corporation; Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation;
Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:18-3294-RMG. (D.S.C.).
On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff commenced the products liability
case alleging that Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Engineering and
Manufacturing North America, Inc. (Defendants) breached implied and
express warranties, violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
engaged in negligent misrepresentation by selling Plaintiff a
Toyota 4-Runner that was prone to excessive rust corrosion,
rendering the vehicle unsafe.
Defendants sought to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and,
regardless, the allegations fail on substantive grounds. Plaintiff
opposed. Additionally, Plaintiff also seeks to amend his
complaint. The proposed amended complaint is almost identical to
his initially-filed complaint, yet includes new causes of action
for negligence and strict liability. Defendants oppose the
amendment, and Plaintiff filed a reply.
Statute of Limitations
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants initially argue that
Plaintiff's claims are barred under the applicable statue of
limitations. For Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims, the
applicable statute of limitations is six years. For Plaintiff's
tort claim, negligent misrepresentation, the applicable statute of
limitations is three years. Regardless, under either limitations
period, Plaintiff's claims are not barred by the statute of
limitations at the motion to dismiss stage. As both Parties
acknowledge, in South Carolina, under the discovery rule, the
statute of limitations only begins to run from the date the injured
party either knows or should know, by the exercise of reasonable
diligence, that a cause of action exists for the wrongful conduct.
Here, under the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint and
accepting all facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
Plaintiff did not discover his claims until July 17, 2017, the
Court notes.
Breach of Warranty Claims
Plaintiff brings claims for both breach of an express warranty and
breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for
a particular purpose. Plaintiff has alleged a valid express
warranty, namely, that Toyota warranted to provide 36 months or
36,000 miles of coverage for the costs of any repair or replacement
necessary due to defect. Plaintiff alleges there was a defect,
namely the excessive rust corrosion on the frame, that Defendants
failed to repair or replace the Car based on the defect, and that
the Car ultimately was inoperable because of the defect.
However, as Defendants correctly note, the express warranty is
expressly limited to three years or 36,000 miles, and similarly
Toyota disclaimed any implied warranties after that same time
period. As the Car was purchased in 2005, under the terms of the
warranty, the express warranty was long-expired by 2018 and the
implied warranties were disclaimed. Yet, Plaintiff alleges that
this limitations period was unconscionable and unenforceable as
Defendant knew, at the time of the limitations and disclaimers, of
the defect.
Therefore, Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants knew, at the
time of sale, that the defect existed and would not manifest until
after the warranty expired, and that Toyota was on notice based on
issues with the frames of prior car models, the Court cannot
determine at the motion to dismiss stage that the durational limits
on the express and implied warranties were not unreasonable or
unconscionable, and Plaintiff's claims for breach of express and
implied warranties may proceed.
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claim
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, provides a method for consumers to
sue for violations of a written or implied warranty. While the Act
has certain express requirements, it generally calls for the
application of state written and implied warranty law, not the
creation of additional federal law.
Therefore, as Plaintiff's state law breach of warranty claims
survive, Plaintiff's claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
survives as well.
Negligent Misrepresentation Claim
Plaintiff additionally brought a claim for negligent
misrepresentation, alleging that Defendants misrepresented that
they used the most advanced technology to help prevent corrosion.
However, under the well-settled economic loss rule, there is no
tort liability for a product defect if the damage suffered by the
plaintiff is only to the product itself. In other words, tort
liability only lies where there is damage done to other property or
personal injury. The only injury alleged in the Complaint is to
Plaintiff's vehicle. The claim for negligent misrepresentation is
therefore dismissed.
Injunction Claim
Plaintiff brought a claim for "injunctive relief" pursuant to the
declaratory judgment act. As injunctive relief is a remedy not a
cause of action, the equitable relief requested is not properly
under the declaratory judgment act and the Court is preempted from
ordering the relief requested, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's
separate cause of action for injunctive relief.
Motion to Amend
Plaintiff's motion to amend seeks to file an amended complaint with
two additional causes of action: one for negligence and one for
strict liability. The proposed amended complaint does not include
any other substantive changes except for these two added causes of
action. However, these amendments are futile as the claims fail to
make out a claim based on the economic loss rule.
Accordingly, in conclusion, the Court rules that Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is
granted to the extent that Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action for
Injunctive Relief and Fifth Cause of Action for Negligent
Misrepresentation are dismissed. The Motion is otherwise denied.
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint is denied, the Court
further rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order and
Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yfchjctd from Leagle.com
Gary Weinreich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio , Bell
Legal Group & James Edward Bell, III , Bell Legal Group, 434 C
Guignard Drive Sumter, SC 29150
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Toyota Motor
Corporation, a Japanese corporation & Toyota Motor Engineering and
Manufacturing North America Inc, Defendants, represented by
Ashleigh Rayanna Wilson - ashleigh.wilson@bowmanandbrooke.com -
Bowman and Brooke, Joel Haywood Smith -
joel.smith@bowmanandbrooke.com - Bowman and Brooke & Robert Latane
Wise , Bowman and Brooke LLP, 1111 E. Main St., Suite 2100
Richmond, Virginia 23219, pro hac vice.
TRANSUNION LLC: Mileva Files FCRA Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union, LLC. The
case is styled as Daria Mileva, other, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans Union, LLC,
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Fifth Third Bank and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00123 (S.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
TransUnion LLC/TransUnion Financing Corp is set up as a dual
issuer. The Company was formed in order to issue notes to finance
future working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, and
other general business purposes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
U.S. STEEL: Clairton Residents Say Proposed Settlement Not Enough
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Marusic, writing for Environmental Health News, reports
that the attorneys who brought a class action lawsuit against U.S.
Steel on behalf of residents of Clairton, Pennsylvania, recently
announced a proposed settlement -- but some residents and community
advocates don't feel justice is being served.
The class action suit was brought by two Clairton residents who
claimed Clean Air Act violations at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke
Works Facility resulted in an inability to enjoy their property
because the air smelled bad or was unsafe for them to breathe.
The Clairton Coke Works facility converts coal into "coke," a
material used for steelmaking, and is one of the largest polluters
in the Pittsburgh region, which has some of the worst air quality
in the nation. The plant has a long history of breaking clean air
laws, and creating health risks for residents who live near the
plant.
This particular lawsuit is strictly about loss of property value
and nuisances from the plant's pollution—it has nothing to do
with health impacts. There are a number of other lawsuits still
pending against U.S. Steel over its pollution of the Pittsburgh
region.
"What can anyone fix with $300?" Cheryl Hurt, one of the lead
plaintiffs in the suit, told EHN. "You couldn't pay your back taxes
with that. You couldn't even buy porch furniture with that."
Hurt runs a daycare facility out of her home. She uses air monitors
and keeps the kids indoors on days when the monitors indicate that
the air outside is dangerous to breathe. As a lead plaintiff, Hurt
will receive $5,000 in addition to her portion of the class
settlement.
"Trust me," she said, "it's still not enough."
Dr. Deborah Gentile, a pediatrician and researcher who discovered
that children at Clairton Elementary School have asthma at more
than double the national rate, and who previously ran an asthma
clinic for those students, expressed a similar sentiment.
"At the end of the day, it's not a good deal for residents,"
Gentile told EHN. "By the time the lawyers take their fees and the
funds are split among these different communities, it's going to be
very little money. I don't know how it would be enough for any home
to be made more air pollution-proof so people can enjoy their
property again."
Bad Timing
Environmental and community advocates expressed a number of
concerns about the details of the proposed settlement.
For one, if eligible residents fail to opt out of the settlement or
file a claim form, they'll receive no money from the lawsuit, but
will still give up their right to sue U.S. Steel for nuisance
claims related to pollution that occurred before December 24, 2018.
The notices informing residents of the settlement are slated to go
out in the mail this week or next—right before Christmas.
"It's disturbing to think that a bunch of people could agree not to
sue U.S. Steel for these types of issues in the future just by not
checking their mail," Emily Collins, Esq. executive director and
managing attorney at Fair Shake, a nonprofit environmental law firm
not involved with the suit, told EHN.
"It's a tough position to put people in to have them lose rights by
virtue of failing to pay attention to what looks like junk mail
that they got the week of Christmas," she added.
Nicholas Coulson, Esq. one of the attorneys at Detroit law firm
Liddle & Dubin who helped Clairton residents bring the lawsuit,
acknowledged that the timing isn't ideal.
"When we file our motion for preliminary approval, we don't know
whether it will be granted in three days or five months," Coulson
told EHN. "I recognize that they're coming over a busy season for
people, which makes it important to get the word out."
In addition to sending out clearly marked notices, Coulson said,
they're publishing announcements in local papers and speaking with
the media.
Questions about equipment upgrades
Some community advocates expressed concern about the upgrades U.S.
Steel agreed to in the proposed settlement.
"It's not clear whether the commitments U.S. Steel is making in
this settlement to upgrade equipment and pollution controls overlap
with the ones they've already made in other settlements," Myron
Arnowitt, Pennsylvania director of Clean Water Action, told EHN.
Arnowitt's environmental advocacy group was not involved in the
lawsuit, but has worked with Clairton residents on air pollution
issues for more than a decade.
Ted Frank, Esq., founder of the The Center for Class Action
Fairness, a non-profit, public interest law firm that was not
involved with the proposed U.S. Steel settlement, said it isn't
unusual for class action settlements to mandate changes a company
was already planning to make.
"The $6.5 million might reflect changes that US Steel was going to
make anyway," Frank told EHN, "and letting the attorneys take
credit for the illusion of relief increases the fees they can get
because they can call it an $8.5 million settlement rather than a
$2 million settlement."
Some residents expressed similar concerns. "If there's $6.5 million
in work that needs to be done so they can follow clean air laws, it
shouldn't have to come out of this lawsuit," Clairton resident
Melanie Meade told EHN. "They should be doing that anyway. That
money should be given to the people who lost out, not earmarked for
the company to help itself."
When asked about why the legal fees would come out of the money
going to Clairton residents rather than out of the funds allocated
to U.S. Steel's own equipment upgrades in the settlement, Frank
said, "The idea [in any class action settlement] is to get as much
money for the attorneys at as little cost as possible for the
defendant, so the fees are always going to come out of the class's
money."
Coulson, the attorney involved with the class action suit, said
that although they avoided telling U.S. Steel what particular
upgrades to make in the settlement because "the company likely has
a better understanding of what's needed," he believes the upgrades
required in the settlement are new, and will actually help the
plant curb its pollution.
"It's in the defendant's best interest to keep the upgrades they're
committing to in legal agreements separate," he added. U.S. Steel
did not respond to questions about whether the equipment upgrades
proposed in the settlement are ones they were already intending to
make.
Coulson also said the settlement is the best deal they could
negotiate in a place with numerous sources of industrial air
pollution where it's difficult to pin the blame on just one
facility, and it should be considered a win for the community.
Other major industrial polluters in the region include TMS
International in Braddock, the McConley and Torley Foundry in
Lawrenceville, and the Cheswick Power Plant in Springdale.
"We're really proud of the results we've been able to get for these
folks," he said. "This facility has been a longstanding concern in
the community that has, in a lot of ways, been underserved… we
believe this will go a long way to compensate these folks for what
they've been dealing with for the last couple years."
A fairness hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m., Feb. 24, 2020, in the
City-County Building in downtown Pittsburgh. Residents can raise
objections to the settlement at the hearing, but only if they have
submitted them in writing before the deadline published in the
notices going out this week. The fairness hearing will take place
after the deadline for opting out of the settlement has already
passed. [GN]
U.S. STEEL: Settles Air Pollution Lawsuit for $8.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Courant reports that U.S. Steel Corp. has agreed to pay
$8.5 million to settle a 2017 class-action lawsuit that accused the
steelmaker of negligence in allowing air pollution emissions from
its Clairton Coke Works.
The proposed agreement was filed in Allegheny County Court and a
hearing on it was scheduled for Feb. 24.
Under the settlement agreement, U.S. Steel must spend at least $6.5
million to reduce soot emissions and noxious odors from the the
Clairton coke-making facility, on the Monongahela River about 20
miles (32 kilometers) south of Pittsburgh.
The remaining $2 million would go to area residents and their
lawyers in the case.
U.S. Steel declined comment.
The company, meanwhile, is facing other lawsuits over pollution
from the Clairton facility, including ones accusing the company of
violating clean air laws after a December 2018 fire damaged the
Clairton facility's sulfur pollution controls.
U.S. Steel announced earlier this year that it will invest more
than $1 billion on state-of-the-art facilities in its western
Pennsylvania operations.
That includes a new cogeneration facility at its Clairton plant
that will feature an emissions control system that can convert some
of the coke oven gas generated there into electricity to power
other parts of the plant.[GN]
UNDER ARMOUR: Gross Law Announces Shareholders' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Under
Armour, Inc. (UA). Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
Under Armour, Inc. (UA)
Investors Affected : August 3, 2016 - November 1, 2019
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Under Armour, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to
quarter to appear healthier, including to keep pace with their
long-running year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (2) undisclosed
to the investing public, the Company had been under investigation
by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission since at least July 2017; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/under-armour-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4886&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]
UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF.: Riffel Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Valentina Riffel, as an individual on
behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
University of Southern California, a California nonprofit
corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-09219 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Jan. 3, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 4:19-cv-08466-DMR.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The University of Southern California is a private research
university in Los Angeles, California. Founded in 1880, it is the
oldest private research university in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J Hyun, Esq.
John Adam Young, Esq.
Mahoney Law Group APC
249 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90012
Phone: (562) 590-5550
Fax: (562) 590-8400
Email: dhuyn@mahoney-law.net
jyoung@mahoney-law.net
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Potuto Suit Removed to Neb. Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Josephine Potuto, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated women v. THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, Case No. CI 19-3760, was removed from
the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska on Jan. 7, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-03003 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts causes of action based on the United States
Constitution.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bren Chambers, Esq.
ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
Varner Hall, Room 234
3835 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 68583-0745
Voice: (402) 472-1201
Facsimile: (402) 472-2038
Email: bchambers@nebraska.edu
- and -
Susan K. Sapp, Esq.
CLINE WILLIAMS WRIGHT JOHNSON & OLDFATHER, L.L.P.
1900 U.S. Bank Building
233 South 13th Street
Lincoln, NE 68608-2095
Phone: (402) 474-6900
Email: ssapp@clinewilliams.com
VENUS CONCEPT: Bushansky Drops Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2019, the plaintiff in the case styled, Bushansky v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit with prejudice as to his individual claims and without
prejudice as to the claims of the putative class, according to
Venus Concept Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 14, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019.
On September 24, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Bushansky v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No.
5:19-cv-06004-MMC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
14d-9. The complaint alleges that the proxy statement filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission by Restoration
Robotics on September 10, 2019 in connection with the proposed
transaction whereby Restoration Robotics would merge with Venus
Concept Ltd. omitted or misrepresented material information. The
complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, unspecified
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Venus Concept Inc., a medical technology company previously known
as Restoration Robotics, Inc., develops and commercializes
image-guided robotic systems in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.
VENUS CONCEPT: District Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Concept Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on October 18,
2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re
Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:18-cv-03712-EJD, is scheduled for July 11, 2019.
On May 23, 2018, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo (the Superior Court), captioned Wong v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc., et al., No. 18CIV02609.
On June 21, 2018 and June 28, 2018, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Guerrini v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF,
respectively.
On July 24, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court related the
Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions and reassigned the Yzeiraj action to
Judge Edward J. Davila. The Wong and Guerrini complaints name the
Company as defendants, and certain of its current and former
executive officers and directors, certain of its venture capital
investors and the underwriters in the Company's IPO. The Yzeiraj
complaint names the Company as defendants and certain of its
current and former executive officers and directors. The Wong
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act. The Guerrini and
Yzeiraj complaints assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act. The complaints all allege, among other things,
that the Company's Registration Statement filed with the SEC on
September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October
13, 2017 in connection with the Company's IPO were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages,
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In addition,
on June 11, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo, captioned Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No.
19CIV08173. The Li complaint asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities
Act and is based on the same set of facts as the Wong complaint.
The Li complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
On August 8, 2018, the Company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, filed a motion to
dismiss the Wong complaint based on the forum selection clause
designating the federal district courts as the exclusive forum for
claims arising under the Securities Act contained in the Company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and which asked
the court in the alternative to stay the Wong action. Also, on
August 8, 2018, the venture capital investor and underwriters'
defendants in the Wong action filed demurrers to the Wong
complaint, and the Company, along with certain of its current and
former executive officers and directors, joined in the venture
capital investor defendants' demurrer. A hearing on the Company's
motion to dismiss and the demurrers to the Wong complaint was held
on October 24, 2018.
On October 25, 2018, the Court ordered the defendants' demurrers to
the complaint sustained with leave to amend and granted an
extension of time for plaintiff to serve a First Amended Complaint
until further order of the Court.
On January 31, 2019, the Court stayed the case and stayed any
decision on the Company's motion to dismiss on forum selection
grounds pending resolution of an appeal of Sciabacucchi v.
Salzberg, a case addressing similar issues in Delaware.
On August 12, 2019, the Court consolidated the Wong and Li actions,
and lifted the stay imposed on January 31, 2019 to allow further
briefing on the Company's motion to dismiss. A further hearing on
the motion to dismiss was held on September 17, 2019.
On October 2, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court granted a
Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel filed by Plaintiff Edgardo
Guerrini, which consolidated the Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions under
the caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD.
On November 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff Edgardo Guerrini filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint for violations of federal securities
laws asserting the same claims, against the same defendants, as his
original complaint but adding certain allegations in support of
those claims.
On January 29, 2019, the Company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The venture
capital defendants and underwriter defendants filed joinders to the
Company's motion to dismiss on the same day.
On October 18, 2019, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss.
No further details were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Venus Concept Inc., a medical technology company previously known
as Restoration Robotics, Inc., develops and commercializes
image-guided robotic systems in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.
VISA INC: Class Status Bid in National ATM Council Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019, that a motion for class certification has been
filed in the lawsuit filed by the National ATM Council and thirteen
non-bank ATM operators.
In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM
operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa
Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.) and
Mastercard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar Mastercard
rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access
fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than
the access fee charged for transactions on other networks.
Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.
On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: Home Depot's Appeals from Court-Approved Pact Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019, that in the Canadian Merchant Litigation,
Wal-Mart Canada and/or Home Depot of Canada Inc.'s appeals from the
Saskatchewan and Alberta decisions approving the settlements are
still pending.
On August 30, 2019, September 9, 2019, and October 17, 2019, the
Court of Appeals in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario,
respectively, rejected the appeals filed by Wal-Mart Canada and
Home Depot of Canada Inc.
Beginning in December 2010, a number of class action lawsuits were
filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and
Alberta against Visa Canada, Mastercard and ten financial
institutions on behalf of merchants that accept payment by Visa
and/or Mastercard credit cards. The actions allege a violation of
Canada's price-fixing law and various common law claims based on
separate Visa and Mastercard conspiracies in respect of default
interchange and certain of the networks' rules. In 2015 and 2016,
four financial institutions settled with the plaintiffs.
In June 2017, Visa, Mastercard and a fifth financial institution
also reached settlements with the plaintiffs. Settlement approval
hearings were held in 2018 and courts in each of the five provinces
approved the settlements. Wal-Mart Canada and/or Home Depot of
Canada Inc. have filed notices of appeal of the decisions approving
the settlements.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: In Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class
----------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019,
that with respect to the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation,
settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf
of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are still ongoing.
Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of
which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal
district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa
International and/or Mastercard, and in some cases, certain U.S.
financial institutions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL 1720. A group of
purported class plaintiffs subsequently filed amended and
supplemental class complaints. The individual and class complaints
generally challenged, among other things, Visa's and Mastercard's
purported setting of interchange reimbursement fees, their "no
surcharge" and honor-all-cards rules, alleged tying and bundling of
transaction fees, and Visa's reorganization and IPO, under the
federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, certain state unfair
competition laws. The complaints sought money damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and, in one instance, an
order that the IPO be unwound.
Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Mastercard
Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated, various U.S.
financial institution defendants, and the class plaintiffs signed a
settlement agreement (the "2012 Settlement Agreement") to resolve
the class plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to the 2012 Settlement
Agreement, the Company deposited approximately US$4.0 billion from
the U.S. litigation escrow account and approximately US$500 million
attributable to interchange reductions for an eight-month period
into court-authorized settlement accounts. Visa subsequently
received from the Court and deposited into the Company's U.S.
litigation escrow account "takedown payments" of approximately
US$1.1 billion.
On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the lower court's certification of the merchant class,
reversed the approval of the settlement, and remanded the case to
the lower court for further proceedings.
On remand, the district court entered an order appointing interim
counsel for two putative classes of plaintiffs, a "Damages Class"
and an "Injunctive Relief Class." The plaintiffs purporting to act
on behalf of the putative Damages Class subsequently filed a Third
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, seeking money damages
and attorneys' fees, among other relief. A new group of purported
class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the putative Injunctive
Relief Class, filed a class action complaint against Visa,
Mastercard, and certain bank defendants seeking, among other
things, an injunction against the setting of default interchange
rates; against certain Visa operating rules relating to merchants,
including the honor-all-cards rule; and against various transaction
fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee, as well as
attorneys' fees.
On September 17, 2018, Visa, Mastercard, and certain U.S. financial
institutions reached an agreement with plaintiffs purporting to act
on behalf of the putative Damages Class to resolve all Damages
Class claims (the "Amended Settlement Agreement"), subject to court
approval. The Amended Settlement Agreement supersedes the 2012
Settlement Agreement and includes, among other terms, a release
from participating class members for liability arising out of
conduct alleged by the Damages Class in the litigation, including
claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended
Settlement Agreement becomes final. Participating class members
will not release injunctive relief claims as a named representative
or non-representative class member in the putative Injunctive
Relief Class. The Amended Settlement Agreement also required an
additional settlement payment from all defendants totaling US$900
million, with the Company's share of US$600 million paid from the
Company's litigation escrow account established pursuant to the
Company's retrospective responsibility plan. The additional
settlement payment was added to the approximately US$5.3 billion
previously deposited into settlement accounts by the defendants
pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement. Based on the percentage
of class members (by payment volume) that opted out of the class,
following final approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement US$700
million will be returned to defendants. Visa's portion of the
takedown payment is calculated to be approximately US$467 million,
and upon receipt, will be deposited into the litigation escrow
account with a corresponding increase in accrued litigation to
address opt-out claims.
On January 24, 2019, the district court granted preliminary
approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, and on June 7, 2019,
the Damages Class plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
Amended Settlement Agreement. Certain merchants in the proposed
settlement class have objected to the settlement and/or submitted
requests to opt out of the settlement class. The district court
held a settlement approval hearing on November 7, 2019.
Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf
of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing.
On January 16, 2019, the bank defendants moved to dismiss the
claims brought against them by the Injunctive Relief Class on the
grounds that plaintiffs lack standing and failed to state a claim
against the bank defendants.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: Nuts for Candy's Class Suit in California Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019, that the Nuts for Candy case is still stayed
pending the district court's decision on preliminary and final
approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement in the Interchange
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) involving putative class actions.
On April 5, 2017, plaintiff Nuts for Candy, on behalf of itself and
a putative class of California merchants that have accepted
Visa-branded cards since January 1, 2004, filed a lawsuit against
Visa Inc., Visa International and Visa U.S.A. in California state
court. Nuts for Candy pursues claims under California state
antitrust and unfair business statutes, seeking damages, costs and
other remedies.
On October 18, 2018, the court stayed the Nuts for Candy case
pending the district court's decision on preliminary and final
approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement in the Interchange
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) – Putative Class Actions.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status in Consumer ATM Fee Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019, that motions for class certifications are
pending purported consumer class actions related to ATM access
fees.
In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed
against Visa and Mastercard in the same federal court challenging
ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class actions
challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in October
2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, Mastercard and three
financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek treble
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where
available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes.
On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs in both cases filed motions for
class certification.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: UK Supreme Court to Hear Merchant Suit Appeal This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2019, that in the Europe Merchant Litigation,
the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is scheduled to hold a
hearing on the appeal in January 2020.
Since July 2013, in excess of 500 Merchants (the capitalized term
"Merchant," when used in this section, means a merchant together
with subsidiary/affiliate companies that are party to the same
claim) have commenced proceedings against Visa Europe, Visa Inc.
and other Visa subsidiaries in the UK and Germany primarily
relating to interchange rates in Europe and in some cases relating
to fees charged by Visa and certain Visa rules. They seek damages
for alleged anti-competitive conduct in relation to one or more of
the following types of interchange fees for credit and debit card
transactions: UK domestic, Irish domestic, other European domestic,
intra-European Economic Area and/or other inter-regional. As of
the filing date, Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and Visa International have
settled the claims asserted by over 100 Merchants, leaving more
than 400 Merchants with outstanding claims. In addition, over 30
additional Merchants have threatened to commence similar
proceedings. Standstill agreements have been entered into with
respect to some of those threatened Merchant claims, several of
which have been settled. While the amount of interchange being
challenged could be substantial, these claims have not yet been
filed and their full scope is not yet known. The Company has
learned that several additional European entities have indicated
that they may also bring similar claims and the Company anticipates
additional claims in the future.
A trial took place from November 2016 to March 2017, relating to
claims asserted by only one Merchant. In judgments published in
November 2017 and February 2018, the court found as to that
Merchant that Visa's UK domestic interchange did not restrict
competition, but that if it had been found to be restrictive it
would not be exemptible under applicable law.
In April 2018, the Court of Appeal heard the Merchant's appeal of
the decision alongside two separate Mastercard cases also involving
interchange claims.
On July 4, 2018, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's
rulings, finding that Visa's UK domestic interchange restricted
competition and the question of whether Visa's UK domestic
interchange was exempt from the finding of restriction under
applicable law had been incorrectly decided. The Court of Appeal
remitted the claim to the lower court to reconsider the exemption
issue and the assessment of damages.
On November 29, 2018, Visa was granted permission to appeal aspects
of the Court of Appeal's judgment to the Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom, including the question of whether Visa's UK
interchange restricted competition. The Supreme Court is scheduled
to hold a hearing on the appeal in January 2020.
The Company said, "The full scope of damages is not yet known
because not all Merchant claims have been served and Visa has
substantial defenses. However, the claims that have been issued,
served and/or preserved seek several billion dollars in damages."
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
WAWA INC: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WAWA, INC. The case
is styled as Demetrius Williams, individually and on behalf of all
others who are similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAWA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00100-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 6, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas
stations located along the East Coast of the United States,
operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3420
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-0300
Fax: (215) 496-6611
Email: espector@srkattorneys.com
X FINANCIAL: Gross Law Announces Shareholders' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded X
Financial. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
X Financial (XYF)
Investors Affected : X Financial American Depositary Shares
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 19, 2018
initial public offering.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in X
Financial. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's total loan facilitation amount was
not growing, but rather was contracting; (ii) the number of
investors actively using X Financial's platform was shrinking;
(iii) demand from small- and medium-sized enterprises for the
Company's preferred loans was plummeting; (iv) the Company's
preferred loans had performed so poorly that it had begun
drastically scaling back its preferred loans in the first quarter
of 2018, several months before the initial public offering ("IPO"),
and was in the process of phasing out such loans completely; (v)
demand for the Company's card loans was also plummeting; (vi) the
revenue and loan facilitation growth provided in the registration
statement leading up to the IPO was achieved by relaxed credit and
due diligence standards, under which the Company had underwritten
tens of millions of dollars' worth of poor quality loans that
suffered from a disproportionately high risk of default as compared
to the Company's earlier loan vintages; (vii) the Company was
suffering from accelerated delinquency rates from poor quality
loans that it had underwritten in the first, second, and third
quarters of 2018, which had caused the Company's delinquency rate
to sharply rise; (viii) the Company's product mix had significantly
deteriorated; (ix) the Company's net revenue was on track to
decline by 22% during the third quarter of 2018; and (x) as a
result, the Registration Statement was materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/x-financial-loss-submission-form/?id=4886&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770
E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]
YALE ASSOCIATES: $562K Settlement in Noye Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for Penn Live Patriot-News, reports that a
federal judge has approved a $562,500 settlement of a class-action
lawsuit against a company accused of providing prospective
employers with inaccurate criminal background checks.
Most of the money from the settlement involving Yale Associates
Inc. that was sanctioned by U.S. Middle District Senior Judge
Yvette Kane will result in payments pf $333 each to more than 1,000
people whose criminal histories were incorrectly reported.
The deal ends a four-year court battle. It began when T. Jason
Noye, the lead plaintiff, accused Yale of misreporting four summary
offenses lodged against him as more serious misdemeanor crimes.
Pennsylvania law allows prospective employers to consider
candidates' felony and misdemeanor convictions, but not summary
convictions, which are the lowest level of offenses in the state's
Crime Code, Noye contended in the suit. Littering and loitering,
for instance, are summaries.
Noye claimed in filing suit in 2015 that Yale incorrectly reported
to a prospective employer that he had four misdemeanors on his
record. Those were actually summaries, he said. He said the
employer withdrew its job offer after receiving the Yale report.
Yale's errors violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, Noye
contended.
Noye, who is to receive a $10,000 payment from the settlement for
acting as the main catalyst for the suit, was represented by the
Philadelphia law firm of Francis Mailman Soumilas and the
Harrisburg-based Community Justice Project. [GN]
[*] JND Legal Appoints Stacey Fishbein as VP of Legal Affairs
-------------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration, a legal management and administration
company serving law firms, companies and government entities, has
appointed Stacey Fishbein as vice president of legal affairs to
provide legal and commercial advice regarding all aspects of the
company's operations. Ms. Fishbein is responsible for handling the
company's corporate, operational, compliance, employment and
administrative matters and will also have managerial oversight for
complex class action cases.
"Stacey brings an impressive resume to JND with her extensive
background handling diverse legal and corporate matters," comments
Jennifer Keough, CEO and co-Founder at JND Legal Administration.
"We worked together at our previous company and I am thrilled to
have her back on the team."
Ms. Fishbein has spent more than 10 years working in the class
action administration field where she has handled a wide range of
corporate matters, managed legal teams, directed complex class
action consumer cases, developed case administration strategies,
performed case audits, and provided legal support to executive
management in operational, policy, compliance, and administrative
areas.
"I am excited to be back with Jennifer, Neil, and David as they
continue to advance JND's reach in the legal administration
market," Ms. Fishbein commented. "The industry is burgeoning and I
look forward to supporting the development of JND's innovative
business initiatives."
Ms. Fishbein began her legal career at Labaton Sucharow handling
complex class action litigation matters involving consumer
protection, securities, corporate governance and shareholder rights
in state and federal courts throughout the country. She earned her
J.D. from Hofstra University School of Law where she was a research
editor for the Hofstra Law Review and received her B.A. from the
State University of New York at Geneseo.
The onboarding of Stacey Fishbein speaks directly to the company's
expansion efforts and growth trajectory. JND continues to
strengthen its position as the premier legal administration firm by
bolstering its senior management team with the best and brightest
talent. The company now employs more than 200 personnel in five
offices across the country and continues to grow its class action,
eDiscovery, mass tort and lien resolution services.
About JND Legal Administration
JND Legal Administration -- http://www.jndla.com-- is a legal
management and administration company led by industry veterans who
are passionate about providing superior service. Armed with
decades of expertise and a powerful set of tools, JND has deep
experience expertly navigating the intricacies of multiple,
intersecting service lines including class action settlement
administration, eDiscovery, government services, mass tort claims
and lien resolution. JND is trusted by law firms, government
agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation. The company
is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California,
Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C.
*********
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 ***