/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200116.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 12 Headlines 360 MANAGEMENT CO: Langfield Hits Biometrics Data Sharing 3M COMPANY: Certification of Non-Exempt Employee Classes Sought 3M COMPANY: Faces Wilson Suit Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF 5 TELLERS: Liz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages 7FRIDAYS INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action ADECCO USA: Lang Suit Over PMMA Violation Removed to M.D. Penn. ADVANCE AMERICA: Viamontes Discrimination Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. AEROCARE HOME: Certification of Class Customer Service Reps Sought AGILANT SOLUTIONS: Class in O'Conner Suit Conditionally Certified AIR CANADA: Final Approval of $100,000 Settlement Sought AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez's Bid to Certify Class Denied AMERICAN HONDA: Wong Sues Over Defective AC System in Civics AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Jimenez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Au Pairs ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing AU PAIR CARE: Faces Munoz Suit in Massachusetts Over Unpaid Wages AURORA CANNABIS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Eaton Suit Over Decline in Share Price AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action BIG LOTS: Settlement Reached in California Wage & Hour Class Suits CAREER EDUCATION: Loughman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls CARLOS LOPEZ: Settlement in Steven Suit Denied Approval CAVALRY LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Van Roeyen Claims CHILDREN'S PLACE: Continues to Defend Rael Class Action CHRISTINE M FONTANA: Ramseure Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Feb. 13 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss CINTAS CORP: Faces Stafford Suit Over Decline of Share Price DANIEL MARKUS: Fails to Pay Managers' Overtime Wages, Lustig Says DELI PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Triplett Claims DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Patton Class Action DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Volonte Securities Class Action ECO SCIENCE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in Raschke Class Suit ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits Ongoing EEB ELECTRIC: Vargas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ENERGY TRANSFER: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action ESSA BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend 2016 Suit over Kickbacks EXELON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline FASHION MARKETING: Rossano Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts FEDEX CORP: Consolidated Class Action Ongoing in New York FIREFIGHTERS COMMUNITY: Members Hit Overdraft, Double-charging Fees FLORIDA: Hall Seeks Certification of Class of FCCC Residents FORD MOTOR: Faces Marino Suit Over Defect in Auto Transmissions FREE STATE: Fails to Pay Contractors' Overtime Wage, Johnson Says GENESCO INC: Settles Indiana & Massachusetts Suits for $1.2MM GERONIMOS GRILL: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GREEN DOT: Block & Leviton Files Class Action Lawsuit GREEN DOT: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit GRUBHUB INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action HARBOR INN: Faces Ramashka Suit Over Fraudulent Federal Tax Forms HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part HEXO CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Still Pending HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Parziale Class Action Pending HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Merryman Suit JUUL LABS: Ledbetter Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama KENCO LOGISTIC: Mintun Biometrics Row Removed to C.D. Ill. KRONOS INC: Two Claims in Namuwonge Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice LADENBURG THALMANN: Scarantino Challenges Sale to Advisor Group LEAD GENERATION: Reynoso's Cert. Bid OK'd; April 30 Hearing Set LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit MARQUEE BROADCASTING: Price Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages MEDLEY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Lax and Dicristino Suits MEDLEY CAPITAL: Parties at Odds on Contingent Fee Award MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits Ongoing in Virginia & Pennsylvania MEGATEL HOMES: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims MERIT MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline MERIT MEDICAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action MIRENESSE COSMETICS: Tillery Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages MOBILE MINI DEALER: Daisy Inc. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts MORGAN STANLEY: Briefing Scheds in Harvey & Chen Labor Suits Moved MYLAN NV: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifes Investors of Class Action MYLAN NV: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit NORDSON CORP: Continues to Defend Ortiz Class Suit in California OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Continues to Defend Stirling Class Action ONCOSEC MEDICAL: Alpha Holdings Class Action Ongoing ORACLE CORP: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit PEPPER'S MIAMI: Rodriguez Claims Overtime for Hours Over 40 PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Still Pending PINK PONY: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Ligon Alleges PLITEK LLC: Soyka Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data PORT AUTHORITY OF NY/NJ: Union Workers Sue Over CBA Violations PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Final Judgment in Mild Securities Suit PREMIER FIRE: King Seeks $6,804 in Unpaid Wages and Other Relief PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Pill Balks at Lantheus Merger Deal PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Properly Pay Cleaners, Gray Says RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit RIVERSIDE PARTNERS: Rosado Files False Product Labeling Case ROBERT SILLERMAN: Ct Enters Final Judgment Dismissing Guevoura Suit SCI COLORADO: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Tarpinian Says SEAGLE PIZZA: Thompson Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers SHANAHAN ENGINEERING: Moore Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA, OPPA SHIFTPIXY INC: Continues to Defend Splond Class Action SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Sees $250,000 Loss in California Class Suit STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Circuit Flips Dismissal of Naimi Class Action STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY: Smith Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Servers TAILORED BRANDS: Continues to Defend Suit vs Twin Hill UNITED NATURAL: Resolution Reached in North County Store Suit USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Sues for Breach of Contract VERU INC: Appeal Period in Schartz Class Suit Already Lapsed WANDA SPORTS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit WAWA INC: Fails to Guard Card Info, Sanders Data Breach Suit Says WORD ENTERPRISES: Bid to Strike Improper Notices in McFarlin Denied YUNJI INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ********* 360 MANAGEMENT CO: Langfield Hits Biometrics Data Sharing --------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Langfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 360 Management Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH14896 (Ill. Cir., December 26, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. 360 Management Company operates as Londonhouse Hotel where Langfield was employed as a steward from May 2016 to August 2017. She was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints and that 360 Management improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com 3M COMPANY: Certification of Non-Exempt Employee Classes Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JASON HOLLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00708-JAK (Kkx) (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Feb. 10, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying these classes: Second Meal Break Class: "all persons employed by Defendant 3M 10 Company as non- exempt employees at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, at any time from March 14, 2015 through the date of certification, who worked at least one shift over 10 hours"; On-Premises Rest Break Class: "all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, at any time from March 14, 2015 through January 31, 2019, who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours"; Meal and Rest Break Interruption Class: "all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees at Defendant's facility in Oak 20 Hills, California, at any time from March 14, 2015 through April 30, 2019, who worked at least on shift over 3.5 hours and received pages during their meal and/or rest breaks"; Meal and Rest Break Premium Class: "all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time from March 14, 2015 through the date of certification, who received a meal or rest break premium and a shift differential and/or overtime wages during the same pay period"; Daily Overtime Class: "all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, at any time from March 14, 2015 through April 30, 2018, who worked pursuant to an alternative work schedule and were not paid daily overtime for work in excess of eight but less than 10 hours"; Off-the-Clock Class: "all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, at any time from March 14, 2015 through the date of certification, who received calls from their supervisors during non-work hours and were not compensated for this time"; and Shift Differential Wage Statement Class: "all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time from March 14, 2015 through the date of certification, who received shift differentials"; 2. certifying derivative claims for failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements and unfair business practices; 3. appointing himself as class representative; and 4. appointing Matthew J. Matern, Launa Adolph, and Kayvon Sabourian of Matern Law Group, PC, as class counsel. The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, health care, and consumer goods.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated are: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com ladolph@maternlawgroup.com ksabourian@maternlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Faces Wilson Suit Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES EDWIN WILSON, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:19-cv-03455-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 12, 2019), seeks damages for personal injury and for those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Wilson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 5 TELLERS: Liz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Liz and Waly Ferreira, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 5 TELLERS ASSOCIATES, L.P., 5 TELLERS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC., PARKVIEW APARTMENTS, LLC, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., JOHN VOLANDES, PETER VOLANDES, and all related entities, Case No. 1:20-cv-00212 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, and other wages owed to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have applied common employment practices, policies and procedures to superintendents and maintenance workers of the 5 Tellers Buildings, including the practice of willfully refusing to compensate these employees for all hours worked beyond the first 40 hours of work per work week, and providing no compensation to building superintendents' family members, who, with the Defendants' knowledge, performed extensive work at the 5 Tellers Buildings, the Plaintiffs allege. Regardless of the time of day or night and/or day of the week when such work was needed, superintendents were paid fixed weekly and/or monthly sums, and they were not paid overtime compensation despite working substantially more than 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as superintendents and maintenance workers. The Defendants were and still are a centrally managed, real estate enterprise that owns, controls, and manages apartment buildings in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc A. Rapaport, Esq. RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC One Penn Plaza 250 West 34th Street, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 382-1600 Email: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com - and - Meredith R. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW, PLLC 167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (347) 878-2587 Email: meredith@millerlaw.nyc 7FRIDAYS INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7FRIDAYS, INC. and BETH ROBAK, Case No. 3:20-cv-50010 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff says she worked over forty hours in a week in at least one week she was employed by the Defendant. She alleges that although she submitted her hours, including the overtime hours to the Defendant, the Defendant did not include her overtime hours in her paycheck. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked over 40 in a week, including failing to pay overtime premium of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a house cleaner from July 2017 through October 2018. The Defendants operate a house-cleaning business as a franchise of The Cleaning Authority.[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: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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. Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ADMS) ADMS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 8, 2017 - September 30, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 10, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adamas-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=4994&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) health insurers were excluding Adamas's primary product, 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. 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] ADECCO USA: Lang Suit Over PMMA Violation Removed to M.D. Penn. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Eaton A. Lang IV, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. ADECCO USA, INC., Case No. 2019-cv-7102, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 9, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-at-06044 to the proceeding. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Adecco discriminated against him by rescinding a conditional offer of employment due to his status as an individual certified to use medical marijuana. The action seeks to recover damages for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act, and for alleged wrongful discharge/wrongful rescission of offer of employment under Pennsylvania common law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jessica M. Bocchinfuso, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 995-2800 Facsimile: (215) 995-2801 Email: jessica.bocchinfuso@ogletree.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Viamontes Discrimination Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Advance America, et al., removed the case captioned as LISET VIAMONTES, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1928605 (Filed Sept. 25, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 12, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02389 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, disability harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy pursuant the Government Code--Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Plaintiff seeks all recoverable damages, including compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees. Advance America offers online cash advances and fast cash loans.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Hardy Ray Murphy, Esq. Alexandra C. Aurisch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: hardy.murphy@ogletree.com alexandra.aurisch@ogletree.com AEROCARE HOME: Certification of Class Customer Service Reps Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as LORI HOPKINS and KILA HAGLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AEROCARE HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case 2:19-cv-04054-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs move the court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all persons formerly and/or presently employed by Defendants who performed Customer Service Representative (CSR) duties during the notice period who were not paid hourly for the time spent working on-call"; 2. approving the dissemination of notice to all collective action members; 3. requiring Defendants to produce a list of all potential collective action members, including their respective last known mailing address, e-mail address and location at which they worked, in electronic format, and to otherwise cooperate with Plaintiffs to ensure a comprehensive distribution of the notice materials in a timely fashion; 4. appointing Lori Hopkins and Plaintiff Kila Hagler as class representatives; 5. appointing Newman, Comley & Ruth, P.C. and Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C. as class co-counsel; and 6. directing the Defendants to refrain from communicating with any potential class member about the case or issues related to the case without prior Court approval. Aerocare Home provide medical supplies and equipment which are considered as Medicare chargeable items.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Matthew A. Clement, Esq. Kari A. Schulte, Esq. COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, P.C. 231 Madison Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone: (573) 635-7977 Facsimile: (573) 635-7414 E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net kschulte@cvdl.net - and - Ryan J. McDaniels, Esq. Kimberly J.Z. Guthrie, Esq. NEWMAN, COMLEY & RUTH P.C. 601 Monroe Street, Suite 301 P.O. Box 537 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: (573) 634-2266 Facsimile: (573) 636-3306 E-mail: ryan.m@ncrpc.com guthriek@ncrpc.com AGILANT SOLUTIONS: Class in O'Conner Suit Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAVAN OCONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, RAMIN PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JONATHAN CEPADA, individually and: on behalf of all others similarly situated, and SHAWN GRIFFITH, Plaintiffs, v. AGILANT SOLUTIONS, INC., doing business as ASI System Integration, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-6937-GHW (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective of field technicians (FTs) who were directly or indirectly employed by Agilant Solutions, Inc ("ASI"); and (ii) the Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations applicable to their Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims. Named Plaintiffs O'Conner, Ramin Pena, Jonathan Cepada, and Shawn Griffith together with opt-in Plaintiffs Rashood Earle and Khazaizal Tamin McGann were employed as Field Technicians ("FTs") either directly or indirectly by Defendant ASI. In affidavits, Plaintiffs aver that Defendant had a policy of sending emails to FTs after their workday had ended that required them to work to prepare for the following day. Because these emails required them to work overtime for which they were not compensated, the Plaintiffs allege that the policy violated Section 216(b) of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that they are similarly situated to other FTs and that together, the Plaintiffs and the other FTs were subjected to a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. The Plaintiffs filed a class and collective action complaint alleging breaches of New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the FLSA on August 3, 2018. The original complaint sought certification of an FLSA collective action and a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 consisting of all individuals employed by Defendant as Field Service Technicians, in worksites throughout New York State at any point" from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint through final disposition of the action. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, and filed the SAC on Jan. 24, 2019. The SAC seeks conditional certification of two FLSA collectives. First, the Plaintiffs seek certification of an "Indirectly Employed Collective Class" under the FLSA consisting of all persons presently or formerly jointly employed by Defendant Agilant and another IT staffing vendor, assigned to worksites located throughout New York City at any time within the three years prior to the action's filing date through the date of the final disposition of this action who were subject to the Defendant's unlawful policy of 'paying to schedule' and failing to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. Second, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a "Directly Employed Collective Class" under the FLSA consisting of all persons presently or formerly employed directly by Agilant after transitioning employment from indirect employment, and were salaried Field Service Technicians assigned to worksites located throughout New York City at any time within the Collective Class Period and who were allegedly subject to the same unlawful policies as the Indirectly Employed Collective Class. Plaintiffs now move for conditional collective certification under the FLSA. They seek court-facilitated notice of the action, including a consent form, and the Court's approval of their proposed notice and consent form. To that end, they ask the Court to order posting of the notice and consent forms in a conspicuous place at the Defendant's places of business and to authorize the dissemination of these forms to members of the putative class via mail, e-mail, and text message. To further facilitate the dissemination of the notice, the Plaintiffs seek the production of a computer-readable list of the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, social security numbers, birth dates, dates of employment and job titles for all persons employed at ASI as Field Technicians between May 15, 2016 and the present date. They also seek expedited disclosure of the identity and contact information of all similarly situated persons and equitable tolling of the statute of limitations during the pendency of the Motion. The Plaintiffs have filed a declaration that attaches five affidavits of former FTs, ASI business records, emails, their proposed notice, and a reminder postcard in support of their motion. The Defendant filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion, Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion To Preliminarily Certify A Coll[ec]tive Action and Request To Toll, accompanied by two affirmations attaching ASI business records in opposition, Affirmation of Mohammad Ilyas in Opposition to Motion for Conditional Certification; Affirmation of Joseph Roman in Opposition to Motion for Conditional Certification. The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendant's opposition. Judge Woods holds that the Plaintiffs have met the limited burden applicable at this stage of the litigation to show that they and other New York FTs were subjected to a common policy or plan. They have also met their limited burden to show that the Defendant's policy or plan violated the law. At this stage of the litigation, that is sufficient to establish that the Defendant's policy violated the FLSA. Hence, the Plaintiffs have shown that they are similarly situated to other FTs, and the Plaintiffs and FTs generally were subjected to a common policy or plan that violated the law. The Plaintiffs have averred that the Defendant had a policy that required all FTs to work off the clock. Because their claims are based on this policy, these claims are amenable to collective disposition. Although individualized issues may remain after adjudication of whether the Defendant's policy violated the law, these issues can be addressed during separate phases of the litigation as necessary. Thus, the individualized issues presented by the Plaintiffs' claims do not defeat conditional certification in the case. The Judge finds that at the collective certification stage, the Court need not resolve factual disputes or decide substantive issues going to the ultimate merits. Rather, it is merely concerned with whether the Plaintiffs were similarly situated to other FTs and whether FTs generally were subjected to a common policy or plan that violated the law. Accordingly, he holds that the Defendant's arguments are premature and do not defeat collective certification. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a collective consisting of FTs who were directly employed by the Defendant and those who were "indirectly" employed by the Defendant via a third-party temporary staffing agency such as TSP. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not presented direct evidence to support a finding that ASI directly or indirectly employed FTs in Staten Island. However, it is a reasonable inference that any such employees were subject to the policies and practices used by ASI in the other boroughs. Thus, he will conditionally certify collective limited to FTs who are or were previously employed directly or indirectly by ASI in New York City. Finally, the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs' request to equitably toll the FLSA statute of limitations from the time that they filed their collective certification motion on May 15, 2019 through the date of the Order. The time required for the Court to resolve the motion also justifies equitable tolling. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Woods granted the Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify a collective action consisting of FTs who are currently employed by ASI or were previously employed for three years prior to May 15, 2019 until the date of the Order, either directly or indirectly, in New York City. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/pgug6l from Leagle.com. Javan OConner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Ramin Pena, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jonathan Cepada, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Shawn Griffith & Earl Rashadd, Plaintiffs, represented by Rachel Meredith Haskell -- rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC & Christopher Quincy Davis -- cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLC. Khazaizal T McGann, Plaintiff, represented by Rachel Meredith Haskell, The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC. Agilant Solutions, Inc., doing business as ASI System Integration, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ira A. Sturm -- isturm@rsgllp.com -- Raab, Sturm & Ganchrow, LLP & Samuel Bloom, Raab, Sturm & Goldman, LLP. AIR CANADA: Final Approval of $100,000 Settlement Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARY DUKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AIR CANADA, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02176-EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court for an order: 1. granting their joint motion for final approval of class action settlement; and 2. certifying two classes: Proposed Disclosure Form Settlement Class: "all Air Canada employees and job applicants who applied for or worked in a position at Air Canada in the United States and who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Air Canada within five years of the filing of the complaint [July 30, 2018] through September 6, 2018 and as to whom Air Canada used a noncompliant FCRA disclosure"; and Proposed Pre-Adverse Action Notice Subclass: "all Air Canada employees and job applicants in the United States against whom an adverse employment action was taken based, in whole or in part, on information contained in a consumer report within five years of the filing of this complaint [July 30, 2018] through September 6, 2018 who were not provided a pre-adverse notice as required by 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A)." The settlement provides for payments to be made to approximately 1,200 members who are a part of the 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(b)(2) class including a subset of approximately 400 class members in a 15 U.S.C. section 1681(b)(b)(3) subclass. The Agreement calls for the creation by Defendant of a common fund for Class Members consisting of $100,000. The Class Members will not be required to take any action to receive a settlement amount, making it a "claims paid" settlement for the class and the subclass. Members of the class who did not opt out will each automatically receive a pro rata gross amount of the settlement fund totaling approximately $77.41. If the requested amounts are granted for attorneys’ fees and a Class Representative service award, Plaintiff anticipates that each (b)(b)(2) class member will receive a net payment of approximately $41.61, and each class members who is part of the (b)(b)(3) subclass will also net an additional $41.61. On September 26, 2019, the Court granted the Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the class-wide settlement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims asserted against Defendant, the lawsuit says. On or about July 30, 2018, Mary Dukes filed the class action lawsuit asserting claims against Defendant under the FCRA on behalf of herself and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals. The lawsuit generally alleged that Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to comply with the FCRA's disclosure and authorization requirements related to consumer reports procured for "employment purposes," and by also failing to provide pre-adverse notice before taking adverse action against applicants based on the contents of a consumer report, the lawsuit added. The Defendant is an airline providing aviation transportation services.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Classes are: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com Counsel for Air Canada are: Charles Wachter, Esq. Bradford D. Kimbro, Esq. Joseph H. Varner, III HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 227-8500 Facsimile: (813) 229-0134 AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez's Bid to Certify Class Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable R. Gary Klausner denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Juan M. Guzman-Lopez v. The American Bottling Company, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04358-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Juan M. Guzman-Lopez brings this lawsuit against his former employer, the American Bottling Company, and Keurig-Dr. Pepper, Inc., for (1) failure to pay regular, minimum, and overtime wages; (2) failure to pay wages due upon termination; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4) meal and rest break violations. Mr. Guzman-Lopez seeks to represent a class defined as: "All persons who have been employed by Keurig-Dr. Pepper, Inc. and The American Bottling Company in California as a non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court ("Class Period")," who fall under one or more of the following subclasses: a) Off-the-Clock Subclass: those who were not paid for all hours worked, in any pay period within the Class Period; b) Meal Break Subclass: those who worked more than five hours and were not provided with uninterrupted meal periods of at least thirty minutes, and/or their meal periods began after the end of the fifth hour of work; c) Rest Break Subclass: those who were not provided uninterrupted rest breaks of at least ten minutes for each four hours of work; d) Wage Statement Subclass: those who were not provided with accurately itemized wage statements listing all hours worked; and e) Waiting Time Subclass: those who were not paid all wages due and owing at the time of their separation. According to the Court's Civil Minutes, not only has the Plaintiff failed to establish commonality warranting certification, but the Defendants' declarations and policies submitted in opposition to the Motion effectively rebut the existence of actionable common policies and practices that might give rise to common issues capable of classwide resolution. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Court finds the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate requisite commonality pursuant to Rule 23(a), the Court foregoes the remainder of Rule 23 analysis and denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Wong Sues Over Defective AC System in Civics ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE WONG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10537 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2019), seeks damages against Honda for breach of manufacturer's warranty and for unfair or deceptive acts or practices pertaining to Honda's design and manufacture of 2016-2018 model Honda Civics. The Plaintiff alleges that the Class Vehicles contain a significant design and/or manufacturing defect that causes a vehicle's air conditioning system to malfunction and stop working while it is in operation. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defect directly affects his and and all others similarly situated use, enjoyment, safety, and value of the Class Vehicles. The Defect's presence poses a safety risk to the operator and passengers of the Class Vehicles, the Plaintiff alleges. He contends that the lack of a functioning air conditioning system--including the lack of working climate control and defroster controls--can cause health dangers that expose the driver and occupants of the Class Vehicles to an increased risk of injury or death. According to the complaint, Honda has long been aware of the Defect but routinely refuses to repair the Class Vehicles without charge. Indeed, in many cases Honda has even refused to disclose the Defect's existence when owners or lessees present for service Class Vehicles with symptoms consistent with the Defect, instead recommending costly repairs, sometimes to non-defective parts of the affected vehicle. As a result of Honda's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including the Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in value, the Plaintiff asserts. He adds that had her and other Class Members known of the Defect at the time of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or leased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. develops and manufactures automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden equipment, parts, and accessories. American Honda Motor serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. Steven A. Haskins, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com sah@mccunewright.com mir@mccunewright.com - and - Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER , LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: 805 270 7100 Facsimile: 805 270 7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Jimenez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Au Pairs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Fernandez Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc. dba Au Pair in America, William J. Gertz, Does 1-10, Case No. 20-83 (Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages for au pairs. APIA advertises to, recruits, screens, trains, places, supervises and oversees au pairs during their stay and work performed in host families' homes in the United States. APIA obtains substantial fees from prospective au pairs, contracts with them, and arranges for their placement with the host families. On April 1, 2015, the Massachusetts Domestic Worker's Bill of Rights went into effect, providing various protections for domestic workers, including au pairs. On August 1, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a litigation brought under the MDWBR, ruling that the minimum wage, overtime and other employment protections for au pairs were not preempted by the federal au pair program. That decision was affirmed by the First Circuit in December 2019. In 2014, APIA and other au pair agencies were named in, and later settled, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a nationwide class of au pairs, in the Colorado District Court, ultimately agreed to pay millions of dollars to au pairs who alleged that they were entitled to, but not paid, minimum wage and overtime pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Despite knowing for years that au pairs in Massachusetts were required to be paid Massachusetts wages, the Plaintiff contends, APIA repeatedly told au pairs they were only entitled to be paid, and host families they were only required to pay, the minimum federal stipend of $195.75 per week. The Plaintiff asserts that APIA never paid its au pairs the required Massachusetts wages. The Defendants were at all times the au pairs' employer and the Defendants are responsible for the au pairs' unpaid wages, the Plaintiff adds. Plaintiff Jimenez is an individual au pair, who resided with a host family in Massachusetts. APIA is one of only 15 J-1 visa au pair program sponsors designated by the U.S. Department of State to recruit, train, place and supervise au pairs for fees charged to host families in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. Josh Gardner, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C. One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-390-7570 Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Ark Restaurants Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by two former tipped service workers. On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated personnel, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain subsidiaries as well as certain officers of the Company. Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, that the Company violated certain of the New York State Labor Laws and related regulations. The Complaint seeks unspecified money damages, together with interest, liquidated damages and attorney fees. There has been no discovery on the merits of the Complaint and the matter is still in the initial stages of discovery concerning whether the named Plaintiffs are seeking to represent an appropriate class of tipped service workers, and if so, whether the named Plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives. The Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was denied on June 27, 2019. The Company believes that the allegations and claims in the Complaint are without merit, and it intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. Ark Restaurants said, "However, the outcomes of legal actions are unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and thus it is inherently difficult to determine the probability or quantification of any loss. Based on information currently available, including the Company's assessment of the facts underlying the Complaint and advice of counsel, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any accrual related to this matter as of September 28, 2019." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ark Restaurants Corp. owns and operates 20 restaurants and bars, 19 fast food concepts and catering operations in the U.S. The New York-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Shuckers, The Rustic Inn, and Southwest Porch. AU PAIR CARE: Faces Munoz Suit in Massachusetts Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Silvia Juliana Forero Munoz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AU PAIR CARE, INC., INTRAX, INC. dba AUPAIRCARE, MARCIE SCHNEIDER and DOES 1-10, Case No. 20-82 (Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for au pairs' unpaid wages. APIA advertises to, recruits, screens, trains, places, supervises and oversees au pairs during their stay and work performed in host families' homes in the United States. APIA obtains substantial fees from prospective au pairs, contracts with them, and arranges for their placement with the host families. On April 1, 2015, the Massachusetts Domestic Worker's Bill of Rights went into effect, providing various protections for domestic workers, including au pairs. On August 1, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a litigation brought under the MDWBR, ruling that the minimum wage, overtime and other employment protections for au pairs were not preempted by the federal au pair program. That decision was affirmed by the First Circuit in December 2019. In 2014, APIA and other au pair agencies were named in, and later settled, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a nationwide class of au pairs, in the Colorado District Court, ultimately agreed to pay millions of dollars to au pairs who alleged that they were entitled to, but not paid, minimum wage and overtime pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Despite knowing for years that au pairs in Massachusetts were required to be paid Massachusetts wages, the Plaintiff contends, APIA repeatedly told au pairs they were only entitled to be paid, and host families they were only required to pay, the minimum federal stipend of $195.75 per week. The Plaintiff asserts that APIA never paid its au pairs the required Massachusetts wages. The Defendants were at all times the au pairs' employer and the Defendants are responsible for the au pairs' unpaid wages, the Plaintiff adds. Plaintiff Munoz is an individual au pair, who resided with a host family in Massachusetts. APC is one of only 15 J-1 visa au pair program sponsors designated by the U.S. Department of State to recruit, train, place and supervise au pairs for fees charged to host families in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. Josh Gardner, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-390-7570 Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com AURORA CANNABIS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Aurora Cannabis Inc. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB) Class Period: September 11, 2019 - November 14, 2019 Deadline: January 21, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/acb The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aurora Cannabis Inc. ("Aurora" or the "Company") revenue would decline in its first quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) the Company would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun facilities; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Aurora's receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com peretz@bgandg.com [GN] AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Eaton Suit Over Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip and Kathy Eaton, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AURORA CANNABIS INC., TERRY BOOTH, STEPHEN DOBLER, GLEN IBBOTT, CAM BATTLEY, MICHAEL SINGER, and JASON DYCK, Case No. 1:20-cv-00274 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that resulted in the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Aurora Cannabis Inc. securities between October 23, 2018, and January 6, 2020, both dates inclusive, The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurora had exaggerated and/or overestimated the demand for and potential market for its consumer use cannabis products; (ii) as a result, Aurora was overproducing consumer use cannabis products, leading to construction and production inefficiencies as well as the oversupply of products to its non-warehouse and warehouse customers; (iii) Aurora was utilizing an unpermitted, proprietary form of treatment in the production process of its medical cannabis geared to obtain a longer shelf life of the flower, which violates German law mandating that companies receive special permission to distribute medical products exposed to ionizing irradiation; and (iv) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results. The market began to learn the truth through a series of adverse disclosures beginning on November 14, 2019, when Aurora released dismal fiscal first quarter 2020 financial results for the period ending on September 30, 2019. In particular, Aurora shocked investors when it announced wider than expected losses and that revenue had declined by 24% quarter over quarter. As a result, the Company reported net income of $10.4 million for the quarter, compared with net income of $104.2 million for the same quarter last year, representing a 90% year over year decline. In addition, Aurora disclosed it would be halting construction immediately at its massive Aurora Nordic 2 facility in Odense, Denmark, to save approximately $80 million over the next year, and indefinitely defer completion of construction and commissioning at its flagship Aurora Sun facility in Medicine Hat, Alberta, to conserve $110 million. On this news, Aurora's stock price fell $.56 per share, or over 17%, to close at $2.73 per share on November 15, 2019. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Aurora securities during the Class Period. Aurora's principal strategic business lines are focused on the production, distribution and sale of cannabis and hemp products in Canada and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Zweig, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com - and – Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Danielle Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com danielles@hbsslaw.com - and – Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Aurora Cannabis Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB) Class Period: September 11, 2019 - November 14, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2020 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. 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 these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] BIG LOTS: Settlement Reached in California Wage & Hour Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that a settlement has been reached in purported wage and hour class actions in California. The company is currently defending three purported wage and hour class actions and several individual representative actions in California. The cases were brought by various current and/or former California associates alleging various violations of California wage and hour laws. Upon further consideration of these matters, including outcomes of cases against other retailers, during the first quarter of 2019, the company determined a loss from these matters was probable and the company increased its accrual for litigation by recording a $7.3 million charge as its best estimate for these matters in aggregate. Since the end of the first quarter of 2019, the company reached tentative settlements in each of the class actions, subject to final documentation and court approval. Big Lots said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in the remaining lawsuits. We believe the existing accrual for litigation remains appropriate." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a community retailer in the United States. Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. CAREER EDUCATION: Loughman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Loughman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00200 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought for injunctive relief and statutory damages resulting from the Defendant's conduct that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant placed telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated on their cellular telephones with the use of an "automatic telephone dialing system", without prior express consent, according to the complaint. The Defendant also failed to implement mandatory minimum procedures required by the TCPA for making telemarketing calls, including the most basic requirement of maintaining a list of persons, who request not to receive such calls and not calling such persons, who make do- not-call requests, says the complaint. Plaintiff Carrie Loughman resided in Homer, Ohio. CEC operates for-profit higher education institutions, including American Intercontinental University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan W. Nicgorski, Esq. HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC 150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-265-2252 Fax: 414-273-8476 Email: anicgorski@hansenreynolds.com - and - Michael C. Lueder, Esq. 301 N. Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-273-7676 Fax: 414-273-8476 Email: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Roger N. Heller, Esq. Sarah R. London, Esq. Avery S. Halfon, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 956-1000 - and - Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. 222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615)313-9000 Email: akaufman@lchb.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: 617-485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and – Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com CARLOS LOPEZ: Settlement in Steven Suit Denied Approval ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied approval of the parties' settlement in the class action ROBIN STEVEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARLOS LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLC, and CARLOS LOPEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-6500 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.). In June 2018, an employee of Defendant Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLC ("CLA"), a provider of mental and behavioral health services to veterans and others, accidentally sent an email containing personal information about approximately 130 current and former CLA employees to a distribution list of current CLA employees (a group numbering about 65). Although there is no evidence that the personal information contained in the email was shared with anyone outside of CLA, let alone misused, several people whose information had been shared sued on behalf of a class of all those whose information had been shared, alleging negligence and violations of several states' laws. Defendants CLA and Carlos Lopez moved to dismiss for, among other things, lack of Article III standing, but before the Plaintiffs filed any opposition to that motion, the parties reached a class-wide settlement. The Plaintiffs now move for approval of the parties' settlement and an award of attorney's fees. Judge Furman holds that although unopposed, the Plaintiffs' motion will be denied. He explains that a court is powerless to approve a proposed class settlement if it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction if no named plaintiff has standing. Thus, although the parties have reached a settlement -- and in light of that settlement, the Defendants have apparently agreed not to press their arguments about standing despite remaining of the view that Plaintiffs do not actually have standing -- the Court is not free to stick its head in the sand. Instead, it must confirm for itself that the Plaintiffs have standing. The Judge concludes that they do not. In the absence of an allegation or evidence that an unauthorized third party intentionally stole the data at issue, courts have concluded that the risk of identity theft is too speculative to support Article III standing. In short, the Court is "powerless to approve" the parties' proposed class settlement because "no named plaintiff has standing." It follows that the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the settlement must be and is denied and that the case must be and is dismissed, Judge Furman opines. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/oD5p39 from Leagle.com. Robin Steven, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Sean Mungin, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public & Devonne McMorris, Plaintiffs, represented by Ishan Dave -- Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC & Abraham Zev Wolf Melamed -- abe@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC. Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLC & Carlos Lopez, Defendants, represented by Janie C. Buckley -- jbuckley@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Michael Bruce Miller -- mbmiller@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. CAVALRY LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Van Roeyen Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Van Roeyen, on behalf of herself and a class of all those similarly situated v. CAVALRY LOGISTICS and UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS HOLDINGS d/b/a UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00184 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to pay proper overtime wages. The Plaintiff says she and the putative class members regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. She adds that they did not regularly take meal breaks or other breaks, and instead ate at their desks and continued to work. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and the putative class members overtime or any other additional compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. The also Defendants failed to keep records of the time worked each week by the Plaintiff and the putative class members, in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL. Plaintiff Susan Van Roeyen is a female former employee of Cavalry and Universal. Cavalry is a global provider of transportation services and logistics solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan G. Zelizer, Esq. HR LAW COUNSEL, LLC 50 S. Main St., Ste. 200 Naperville, IL 60540 Phone: (630) 551-8374 CHILDREN'S PLACE: Continues to Defend Rael Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc. The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent a class of California purchasers and seeks, among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of preliminary approval by the court of the settlement. The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration expenses. The court stayed the matter in April 2018, pending an appellate court ruling in another lawsuit to which the Company is not a party. In June 2019, the court entered an order lifting the stay. The settlement, if ultimately approved by the court, will result in the dismissal of all claims through the date of the court's preliminary approval of the settlement. However, if the settlement is rejected by the court, the parties will likely return to litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in its consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty apparel retailer. The company operates through two segments, The Children's Place U.S. and The Children's Place International. The company was formerly known as The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. and changed its name to The Children's Place, Inc. in June 2014. The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey. CHRISTINE M FONTANA: Ramseure Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Demont Ramseure and Jarmar Paul, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHRISTINE M. FONTANA COMPANIES, LLC, AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00027 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs allege that they, on a typical week, would work overtime exceeding 40 hours worked for each pay period, but were never compensated at a premium overtime rate of one-and-a-half-times their regular base salary. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at its location in Buffalo, New York. Defendant Christine M. Fontana Companies, LLC, conducts business through two rental car locations located in or around Buffalo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Alba, Esq. FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER, P.C. 74 Main Street PO Box 31 Akron, NY 14001 Phone: (716)-542-5444 - and - Scott J. Bogucki, Esq. GLEICHENHAUS, MARCHESE, & WEISHAAR, P.C. 930 Convention Tower 43 Court Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 845-6446 CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Feb. 13 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that oral argument on the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Mark Gottlieb is scheduled before the Delaware Court of Chancery for February 13, 2020. On August 14, 2019, Mark Gottlieb, a Company stockholder, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Jonathan Duskin; Seth Johnson; Keri Jones; Kent Kleeberger; William Sharpe, III; Joel Waller and Laura Weil (the "Named Directors"), B. Riley FBR, Inc. and B. Riley Financial Inc., in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, on behalf of himself and all stockholders who held shares as of December 20, 2018. The lawsuit alleges that the Named Directors breached their duty of loyalty in connection with the Company's rejection in December of 2018, of an unsolicited bid to acquire the Company. The lawsuit further alleges that the B. Riley firms aided and abetted the asserted breach of the duty of loyalty by the Named Directors. The Company believes the Complaint is without merit. The Named Directors, and the Company on their behalf, together with the B. Riley firms, intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On September 18, 2019, the Director Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion has been briefed by Plaintiff and the Defendants and oral argument on the motion is scheduled before the Court of Chancery on February 13, 2020. Christopher & Banks Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of private-brand women's apparel and accessories in the United States. It was formerly known as Braun's Fashions Corporation and changed its name to Christopher & Banks Corporation in July 2000. The Company was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota. CINTAS CORP: Faces Stafford Suit Over Decline of Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID STAFFORD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CINTAS CORPORATION, SCOTT D. FARMER, J. MICHAEL HANSEN, and PAUL F. ADLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01054-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 12, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 26, 2019, following a fire in Aurora, Illinois, the Aurora Fire Department's inspection revealed that Cintas' employee, who filled out the paperwork regarding the building's sprinkler system's test and inspection was not licensed. The Fire Department's full investigation into Cintas revealed that eight of the twelve Cintas inspectors in Aurora were not licensed by the State of Illinois for these inspections. In Indiana, the City of Hobart Fire Marshall filed a complaint with the Contractor's Licensing Board after noticing that Cintas had performed work without a contractor's license. Cintas inspected a fire system without proper licensing or protocol--including not disabling the system before inspection nor setting up a fire watch while the system was down. In addition, Cintas' failure to ensure that a haul truck's fire suppression system was installed and maintained resulted in a death on September 7, 2018, at the Bear Run Mine in Carlisle, Indiana. As noted in the U.S. Department of Labor Mine and Safety Administration Coal Mine Safety and Health Report of Investigation, the "Root Cause" of the fatal equipment fire accident was: The mine operator and Cintas did not ensure the fire suppression system on the Caterpillar 793C haul truck, company number 2-170, was installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, says the complaint. On July 26, 2019, Cintas filed its annual report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2019. The 2019 10-K was signed by Defendants Farmer and Hansen. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Cintas never tracked legacy margins following the acquisition of G&K Services, Inc.; the Company has systematically provided guidance with which it would outperform (a "Beat and Raise" scheme); undisclosed to the investing public, the Company has breached the law multiple times; as a result of public and undisclosed breaches of law, the Credit Agreement may be jeopardized; and 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. On November 13, 2019, Spruce Point Capital Management released an investment research report (the "Spruce Point Report") detailing several major issues with Cintas. The Spruce Point Report found that Cintas's management repeatedly claimed that the G&K acquisition would improve Cintas's legacy margins while it was discussing the acquisition to investors. Cintas never developed or implemented measures to specifically track Cintas legacy margins, as opposed to Defendant Hansen's statements during the Q1 2018 Earnings Call. On this news, shares of Cintas fell $3.61 per share to close at $255.24 per share on November 13, 2019, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff purchased Cintas securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Cintas supplies corporate identity uniform programs, and provides entrance and logo mats, restroom supplies, promotional products, first aid, safety, fire protection products and services, and industrial carpet and tile cleaning. The Company operates more than 400 facilities in North America, including six manufacturing plants and eight distribution centers. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Karon, Esq. Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216.622.1851 Facsimile: 216.241.8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com bhollowell@karonllc.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com DANIEL MARKUS: Fails to Pay Managers' Overtime Wages, Lustig Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Lustig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DANIEL MARKUS, INC. (D/B/A Perfect Pawn), DANIEL RISIS, MARGARITA RISIS and OLEG NEIZVESTNY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00379 (D.N.J., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law for their misclassification of employees with the title of "Manager" as exempt from overtime pay and the consequent failure to pay the Plaintiff and the other Managers at time and one-half their hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Mr. Lustig contends that the Defendants misclassified him and the Managers as exempt from overtime pay and consequently failed to pay them at time and one-half their hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants misclassified him and the other Managers as exempt employees under the FLSA and NJWHL and maintained a policy and practice of requiring them to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by those federal and state law regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Manager at Daniel Markus' Morristown, New Jersey pawn shop. The Defendants own, operate, or control several pawn shops located throughout New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq. Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 448-1100 Email: costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com DELI PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Triplett Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER TRIPLETT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DELI PARTNERS, LLC; HARVEY NORTH LITTLE ROCK, LLC; DELI PARTNERS OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, LP; and BOURKE C. HARVEY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00893-BRW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 12, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers the legal minimum hourly wage and overtime compensation for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. From September 2019 until November 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid delivery driver. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants classified him and all similarly situated members of the FLSA collective as non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. According to the complaint, despite the entitlement of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to minimum wage and overtime payments under the FLSA, and because the Defendants required them to pay for automobile expenses and other job-related, out of pocket expenses, the Defendants failed to pay these drivers a minimum wage rate for all hours up to 40 in each one week period and an overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each one-week period. The Defendants own and operate nine Jason's Deli franchise restaurants in Arkansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Patton Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company is defending against a class action suit entitled, Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF. In October 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned Patton v. Domo, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors alleging violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States. Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork, Utah. DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Volonte Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company is defending against a securities class action suit entitled, Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778. In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public offering alleging violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. The Company believes this lawsuit is also without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States. Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork, Utah. ECO SCIENCE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in Raschke Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eco Science Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that settlement discussions is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by Richard Raschke. On February 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff, Mr. Richard Raschke, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed an amended consolidated class action complaint against the Company, the Taylors, and Mr. Gannon Giguiere in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Class Action arises out of alleged materially false and misleading statements or omissions from SEC filings and/or public statements by or on behalf of Company. The Class Action asserts claims against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, violation of Section 20(a) of the Act against the Taylors and Giguiere and Violation of Section 20(b) against Mr. Giguiere. The Class Action seeks (1) certification of the purported class of plaintiffs, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the class and (3) an award of reasonable costs and expenses. Defendants have moved to stay this action. The Parties have tentatively agreed not to prosecute the litigation but, instead, to engage in settlement discussions. Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a bio and software technology-focused company, provides solutions for the health, wellness, and alternative medicine industry. Its services include business location, localized communications between consumers and business operators, social networking, inventory management/selection, and payment facilitation and delivery. Eco Science Solutions, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Makawao, Hawaii. ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Ecology and Environment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the company continues to defend two class action suits related to its merger with WSP Global Inc.: -- Jordan Rosenblatt v. Ecology & Environment, Inc., et al.; and -- Randall Meidenbauer v. Ecology & Environment Inc. et al. On August 28, 2019, Ecology's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with WSP Global Inc. (WSP). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Ecology will receive $15.00 in cash and a special dividend of up to $0.50 for each share of Ecology common stock they own. The lawsuits were filed October 8 and 14, 2019, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Rosenblatt complaint was filed as a putative class action on behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, while the Meidenbauer complaint was filed as an individual action on behalf of the named plaintiff only. Both complaints name as defendants the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors. The Rosenblatt complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the preliminary proxy statement for the Merger that the Company filed with the SEC on September 26, 2019, and the Meidenbauer complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement for the Merger that the Company filed with the SEC on October 8, 2019 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"). The complaints seek various forms of relief, including a preliminary injunction preventing the Company from proceeding with the stockholder meeting or the consummation of the Merger until the alleged material information omitted from the Definitive Proxy Statement is disclosed, rescission of the Merger if it is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and expenses. On October 31, 2019, the Company received a demand letter from an additional stockholder alleging violations of federal securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the Definitive Proxy Statement and threatening to file a lawsuit unless certain supplemental disclosures were made by the Company regarding the Merger. Ecology and Environment, Inc. (EEI) is a global broad-based environmental consulting firm. The Company offers consulting services in variety of sectors including energy, natural resource management and restoration, green programs, hazardous material services and health sciences. EEI serves both commercial and government clients. The company is based in Lancaster, New York. EEB ELECTRIC: Vargas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- GILMER M. VARGAS, and other similarly situated individuals v. EEB ELECTRIC SERVICES CORP. and EDGARD E. PONCE BARRIGA, individually, Case No. 8:19-cv-03060 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid wages, failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he and all other current and former employees similarly situated to him worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after June 2019, without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA. The Defendants employed Mr. Vargas as an electrician, from June 17, 2019, through November 1, 2019. The Plaintiff was sent to work to Randall Mechanical, Inc., a provider of for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems installation services, which was located at 3307 Clarcona Road, in Apopka, Florida. EEB is a staffing company providing labor for the construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.comS ENERGY TRANSFER: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Energy Transfer LP. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the link below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Energy Transfer LP (NYSE: ET) Class Period: February 25, 2017 - November 11, 2019 Deadline: January 21, 2020 For more info: www.bgandg.com/et The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Energy Transfer's permits to conduct the Mariner East pipeline project in Pennsylvania were secured via bribery and/or other improper conduct; (2) the foregoing misconduct increased the risk that the Energy Transfer and/or certain of its employees would be subject to government and/or regulatory action; and (3) as a result, Energy Transfer's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com peretz@bgandg.com [GN] ESSA BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend 2016 Suit over Kickbacks --------------------------------------------------------------- ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that ESSA Bank & Trust continues to defend a class action suit. ESSA Bank & Trust (the Bank) was named as a defendant in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Acts. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Bank and remanded the case back to the district court in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now proceeding before the district court. The Bank will continue to vigorously defend against such allegations. ESSA said, "To the extent that pending or threatened litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently estimable." ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank & Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. EXELON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Exelon Corporation ("Exelon" or the "Company") (EXC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 19-cv-08209, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Exelon securities between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 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 Exelon securities during the class period, you have until February 14, 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. Exelon is a utility services holding company that engages in energy generation and delivery businesses in the U.S. 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 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) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in unlawful lobbying activities; (ii) the foregoing increased the risk of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (iii) ComEd's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) that, as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 15, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that both Exelon 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." Then, on October 9, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed another Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that, on October 4, 2019, both Exelon and ComEd "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." That Current Report also disclosed that, as far back as "[o]n June 21, 2019, the Exelon Corporation Board formed a Special Oversight Committee, consisting solely of independent directors, to oversee [Exelon and ComEd's] cooperation and compliance with the subpoena, any further action taken by the U.S. Attorney and any resulting actions that may be required or recommended." On October 15, 2019, shortly before the market closed, Exelon issued a press release announcing the abrupt departure of Anne Pramaggiore ("Pramaggiore"), Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Exelon Utilities, and former President/CEO of ComEd. The Company's statement on Pramaggiore's retirement offered no reason for her departure, but analysts following the Company came to the conclusion that the criminal subpoenas and Pramaggiore's abrupt resignation were related. On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $2.15 per share, or 4.57%, to close at $44.91 per share on October 16, 2019. Then, on October 31, 2019, during intraday trading, Exelon filed a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, disclosing that "[o]n October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities." On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $1.17 per share, or 2.51%, to close at $45.49 per share on October 31, 2019. Finally, on November 1, 2019, after the market opened, the Chicago Tribune reported that "[a] source with knowledge of the case in Chicago" 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" (emphasis added). Additionally, "[t]he information sought by the FBI included records of communications among Madigan, McClain and Zalewski about attempts to obtain ComEd lobbying work for Zalewski." On this news, Exelon's stock price fell an additional $0.15 per share to close at $45.34 per share on November 1, 2019-a total decline of 2.83% since the initial announcement of the SEC investigation. 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. [GN] FASHION MARKETING: Rossano Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA ROSSANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FASHION MARKETING AND MERCHANDISING GROUP, INC., f/k/a SHEIN FASHION GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-CV-10523 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2019), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that to solicit new customers, the Defendants engage in unsolicited telemarketing with no regard for consumers' privacy rights. She adds that the Defendants caused thousands of text messages to be placed to her and Class Members' cellular telephones, causing them injuries. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendants' illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class Members and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants. The Defendants specialize in "fast fashion" and operate an e-commerce platform focusing on women's wear and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Litvak, Esq. DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 477-5575 Facsimile: (310) 477-7090 E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. HAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Boulevard, No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FEDEX CORP: Consolidated Class Action Ongoing in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and former officers were named as defendants in two putative class action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints, which have been consolidated, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public filings with the SEC and other public statements during the period from September 19, 2017 to December 18, 2018. FedEx said, "We are not currently able to estimate the probability of loss or the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this stage of the litigation." FedEx Corporation (FedEx) provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc. ("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload ("LTL") freight services. FIREFIGHTERS COMMUNITY: Members Hit Overdraft, Double-charging Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gibbs and Randall and Donna Joy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firefighters Community Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11781 (S.D. N.Y., December 24, 2019), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief arising from Defendant's assessing of a $30 ATM/VCC Not-Sufficient-Funds fees on transactions that do not actually overdraw checking accounts and multiple "Returned Item" fees on a single transaction in breach of contract. Gibbs and the Troys both have checking accounts with Firefighters Community Credit Union, a credit union with 8 locations in Ohio that provides retail account services to its members. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 425 Walnut St. Suite 2315 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 381-2224 Email: alysonb@bsj firm.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Martin F. Schubert, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com martys@bsjfirm.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com FLORIDA: Hall Seeks Certification of Class of FCCC Residents ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WENDALL HALL v. CHAD POPPELL AND DONALD SAWER, Case No. 2:19-cv-00878-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla.), moves for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In December 2019, the Plaintiff filed this civil action complaint against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' disciplinary behavior management policies are punishing him for his diagnosed mental abnormalities or personality disorders and that these policies have a punitive objective, creating a punitive environment for the Plaintiff, a civilly committed alleged sexual violent predator. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violate tentative due process of law of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Chad Poppell is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). Donald Sawer is the administrator of the Florida Civil Commitment Center. Mr. Hall contends that the Defendants' disciplinary behavior management policies are enforced and applied on every resident residing at FCCC, which has over 600 residents that violate its disciplinary rules or whose behavior is not in compliance with facility policies. He asserts that most or many of the FCCC residents are either ignorant of their claims in this case or are not schooled in the law on these claims and lack a basic education on these legal claims that affects all residents. If the Court certifies his lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated FCCC residents, then the Court should appoint a counsel or a licensed attorney to represent them, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of similarly situated FCCC residents, appoint a class counsel and/or consolidate cases with similar claims filed in the Court by FCCC residents. The Plaintiff, at FCCC, in Arcadia, Florida, appears pro se.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Faces Marino Suit Over Defect in Auto Transmissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Marino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-10048 (D. Mass., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or leased Model Year 2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles, which were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold or leased by the Defendant or the Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or affiliates, that have transmission defect. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knew or should have known that the Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing defects, including defects contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a ten-speed automatic transmission that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, and hesitate between gears. An automatic transmission is essentially an automatic gear shifter. Instead of manually shifting the gears with a clutch, the automatic transmission does it on its own. The transmission acts as a powertrain to convert the vehicle engine's force into a controlled source of power. Accordingly, drivers need a properly functioning automatic transmission in order to safely and reliably accelerate and decelerate their Vehicles. A common design and/or manufacturing defect in Ford's 10R80 transmissions is a potentially life-threatening safety issue and Ford has refused to recall or replace the defective Transmissions, the Plaintiff asserts. He contends that Ford refuses to replace or repair the Transmissions and merely states that the abrupt and harsh shifting is normal. Prior to purchasing or leasing the Vehicles, the Plaintiff avers he and other Class Members did not know that the Vehicles would abruptly and harshly shift due to the Transmission Defect and cause their vehicles to unexpectedly surge, hesitate, and jerk. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known about the Transmission Defect at the time of sale or lease, as well as the associated costs related to the Transmission Defect, they would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them. As a result of their reliance on Defendant's omissions and/or misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicle, says the complaint. Mr. Marino leased a 2019 Ford F-150 Sport. The Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased Model Year 2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with the 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission designed and manufactured by Ford.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Phone: (310) 450-9689 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – John R. Fabry, Esq. Luis Munoz, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305 Round Rock, TX 78664 Phone: (512) 671-7277 Facsimile: (512) 238-0275 Email: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com lmunoz@carlsonattorneys.com - and – Sidney F. Robert, Esq. BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES 300 Fannin, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 225-1682 Facsimile: (713) 225-1785 Email: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com FREE STATE: Fails to Pay Contractors' Overtime Wage, Johnson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FREE STATE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00197-EGS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2020), alleges that the Defendant have unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated construction contractors overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Mr. Johnson, who was hired by the Defendant as a Construction Contractor, alleges that he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not properly compensated such that he was not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. He contends that the Defendant unlawfully misclassified him and the Class Plaintiffs as independent contractors under the FLSA and PMWA. The Defendant is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-0210 Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com GENESCO INC: Settles Indiana & Massachusetts Suits for $1.2MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the Company has reached an agreement in principle in the "Chen and Salas Action", and "Massachusetts lawsuits". On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the Company's former Hat World subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Chen and Salas v. Genesco Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the FLSA and certain Illinois and New York wages and hours laws, including, among others, failure to pay overtime to store managers, and also seeking back pay, damages, statutory penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 8, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the Company's former Hat World subsidiary filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claiming violations of the Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L.C. 151 Section 1A, by failing to pay overtime to employees classified as store managers, and seeking restitution, an incentive award, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the Chen and Salas and Massachusetts matters for payment of attorneys' fees and administrative costs totaling $0.4 million plus total payments to members of the plaintiff class who opt to participate in the settlement of up to $0.8 million. The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court. The Company does not expect that the proposed settlement will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men, women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman, Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville. GERONIMOS GRILL: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GERONIMOS GRILL, INC., and LOUIE A. DIMITRELOS, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-20107-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants have failed to compensate similarly situated employees in accordance with the FLSA by depriving them of the FLSA's required overtime premium, says the complaint. Despite having knowledge of the Plaintiff's overtime hours and pay structure, the Defendant improperly calculated the Plaintiff's overtime premium pay rate. As such, the Plaintiff seeks, and the Defendants owe, the halftime premium for each hour of overtime worked, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Rodriguez worked as a non-exempt cook for the Defendants. The Defendants operate a restaurant and bar in Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Valerie Barnhart, Esq. Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq. Brody Shulman, Esq. PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN 12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 Phone: 786.485.5232 Email: freddy@pererabarnhart.com valerie@pererabarnhart.com bayardo@pererabarnhart.com brody@pererabarnhart.com GREEN DOT: Block & Leviton Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation firm representing investors and whistleblowers nationwide, informs investors that there has been a class action lawsuit filed against Green Dot Corp (GDOT) and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Class members interested in serving as lead plaintiff are required to move for appointment by February 17, 2020 and are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more. The class action complaint, which was filed in the Central District of California and captioned Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et. al., No. 1:19-cv-05949 (C.D. Cal.), alleges that Defendants misled investors and failed to disclose that Green Dot's efforts at attracting "high value" customers to its consumer banking products were resulting in the loss of so-called "low value" or "one-time use" customers - an important revenue stream for the Company. The truth emerged on November 7, 2019, when Green Dot released its financial results for the third quarter and nine months period ended September 30, 2019. During the conference call to discuss the results, Green Dot's CEO disclosed that there was a continuing decline of accounts in its active consumer business of approximately 620,000 which were mostly "one-time use accounts." On this news, the Company's stock price declined from $29.95 per share to a close of $24.54 per share in a single day of trading, a drop of approximately 18%. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Green Dot securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019 and have questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this matter, you are encouraged to contact attorney Mark Delaney at (617) 398-5600, by email at mdelaney@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/gdot Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous individual investors in securities litigation throughout the country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. Contact: Mark Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP Tel: (617) 398-5600 phone 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Email: mark@blockesq.com [GN] GREEN DOT: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Green Dot Corporation. Shareholders who purchased shares 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. Green Dot Corporation (GDOT) Investors Affected : May 9, 2018 - November 7, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Green Dot Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Green Dot's strategy to attract "high-value" long-term customers was at the expense of "one and done" customers; (2) Green Dot's "one and done" customers represented a significant source of revenues in its legacy segment; (3) consequently, Green Dot'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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/green-dot-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=4973&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] GRUBHUB INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Grubhub Inc. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the link below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Grubhub Inc. (NYSE: GRUB) Class Period: July 30, 2019 - October 28, 2019 Deadline: January 21, 2020 For more info: www.bgandg.com/grub The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) customer orders were actually declining, despite the massive investments the Company had made to spur demand for and use of its platform; (2) Grubhub's new customer additions were generating significantly lower revenues as compared to historic cohorts because these customers were more prone to using competitor platforms; (3) Grubhub's vaunted business model under which it secured exclusive restaurant partnerships had failed, and Grubhub needed to engage in the same aggressive non-partnered sales tactics embraced by its competitors to generate significant revenue growth; (4) Grubhub was required to spend substantial additional capital in order to grow revenues and retain market share in the face of heightened competitive dynamics and market saturation, eviscerating the Company's profitability; and (5) as a result, Grubhub's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com peretz@bgandg.com [GN] HARBOR INN: Faces Ramashka Suit Over Fraudulent Federal Tax Forms ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Ramashka, individually and on behalf of similarly situated tipped employees v. HARBOR INN, INC., SHEREE MUSSON, and MARK MUSSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00061-BPG (D. Md., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for willfully issuing false and fraudulent federal tax forms. The Defendants were responsible to submit accurate wage statements for the Plaintiff to the IRS. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully and knowingly filed false tax forms that misstated her wages earned for each year of employment that she worked for the Defendants. The Defendants knowingly filed false W-2s with the IRS concerning her employment wages and misstated the amount paid in fact, and the amount owed in fact, to the IRS, Ms. Ramashka asserts. Ms. Ramashka was employed by the Defendants in 2014 and three years off and from 2015 through October 2018. Harbor Inn, Inc. is a Maryland based, for-profit corporation, that operates the Harbor Inn Bar located in Ocean City, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard P. Neuworth, Esq. Devan M. Wang, Esq. LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 606 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201 Towson, MD 21204 Phone: 443.273.1202 Fax: 410.296.8660 Email: rn@joblaws.net dw@joblaws.net HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the court has denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative class and granted the demurrer as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs in the case, Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing substantially similar work. The complaint alleges various California state law claims, including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a California-only class of female employees employed in certain "Covered Positions." The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HEXO CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class action lawsuit have been filed on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded HEXO Corp. (NYSE: HEXO). Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. HEXO Corp. (NYSE: HEXO) Class Period: January 25, 2019 - November 15, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 27, 2020 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 HEXO's reported inventory was misstated as the Company was failing to write down or write off obsolete product that no longer had value; (2) that HEXO was engaging in channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) that HEXO was cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) that as a result, HEXO's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the appeal from a court ruling in the case, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, is still pending. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in federal district court in San Jose, California. The plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of 40. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017. On January 12, 2018, the defendants moved to transfer the matter to the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. The defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. The Court dismissed the action on the basis of improper venue. On July 23, 2018, the plaintiffs refiled the case in the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs also filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 1, 2018, the Georgia court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay and administratively close the Georgia action until the Ninth Circuit appeal is decided. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Parziale Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Parziale v. HP, Inc. On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Parziale v. HP, Inc., alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. Sections 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff, a Florida resident who purchased OfficeJet printers in Florida, seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges." On October 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding the following new causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, remains stayed. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012. Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the nationwide collective action should be shortened and now starts on December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs. On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release agreements, and also stayed the entire case until the arbitrations are completed. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs and twelve opt-in plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. An additional arbitration claimant was added later by stipulation. On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand. On February 6, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin. Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings took place on October 4 and 5, 2018, and the claims of all 16 arbitration claimants were resolved. Between November 2018 and April 2019, an additional 154 individuals filed consents to opt‐in to the action as party‐plaintiffs. Of the new opt-ins, 145 signed separation agreements that include class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The addition of these opt-ins brings the total number of named and opt-in plaintiffs to 193. Mediation proceedings took place in June 2019 with respect to the 145 opt-ins who signed separation agreements, and the parties are continuing to engage in settlement discussions. The stay of the litigation remains in place. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Merryman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BENJAMIN MICHAEL MERRYMAN, AMY WHITAKER MERRYMAN TRUST, B MERRYMAN AND A MERRYMAN 4TH GENERATION REMAINDER TRUST CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-09188-VEC (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the Plaintiffs' proposed plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund created by the Class Settlement. Judge Caproni found and concluded that the Plan of Allocation is, in all respects, fair and reasonable to the Settlement Class. Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval regarding any plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Order and Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Bt6GND from Leagle.com. Benjamin Michael Merryman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Christopher Mulveny, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan J. Barlieb, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer L. Enck, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonathan Flexer Neumann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Sharan Nirmul -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Amy Whitaker Merryman Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & B Merryman and A Merryman 4th Generation Remainder Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Christopher Mulveny, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan J. Barlieb, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer L. Enck, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonathan Flexer Neumann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Zachary Arbitman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Chester County Retirement Board, Plaintiff, represented by Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer L. Enck, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonathan Flexer Neumann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Zachary Arbitman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Susan Leslie Saltzstein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Franklin B. Velie, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, LLP, Jeffrey S. Geier, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Jonathan G. Kortmansky -- jkortmansky@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, LLP & Marco Enrique Schnabl -- marco.schnabl@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. JUUL LABS: Ledbetter Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case titled Rebecca Ledbetter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; Fictitious Defendants A-DD, Case No. 68-cv-2019-901030, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Jan. 9, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00032-JEO to the proceeding. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts 13 counts of claims against JLI, and three against Altria (noted with an asterisk): (1) Negligence*; (2) Wantonness; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty; (4) Strict Product Liability--Failure to Warn; (5) Strict Product Liability--Design Defect; (6) Fraudulent Suppression; (7) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (8) Unlawful Trade Practice; (9) Unjust Enrichment; (10) Violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (11) Violation of California False Advertising Law; (12) Violation of California Unfair Competition law; and (13) Civil Conspiracy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William H. Brooks, Esq. Lana A. Olson, Esq. Jeffrey P. Doss, Esq. Christopher C. Yearout, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Facsimile: (205) 581- 0799 Email: wbrooks@lightfootlaw.com lolson@lightfootlaw.com jdoss@lightfootlaw.com cyearout@lightfootlaw.com - and - Austin Schwing, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Phone: (415) 393-8210 Facsimile: (415) 374-8458 Email: aschwing@gibsondunn.com - and - R. Bruce Barze, Jr., Esq. Lisa McCrary, Esq. BARZE TAYLOR NOLES LOWTHER LLC Lakeshore Park Plaza 2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 330 Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: (205) 872-1032 Email: bbarze@btnllaw.com lmccrary@btnllaw.com - and - Scott A. Powell, Esq. Bruce J. McKee, Esq. Don McKenna, Esq. Christopher S. Randolph, Jr., Esq. Tempe D. Smith, Esq. HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 800 Birmingham, AL 35203 Email: scott@hwnn.com bruce@hwnn.com chris@hwnn.com don@hwnn.com tempe@hwnn.com KENCO LOGISTIC: Mintun Biometrics Row Removed to C.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Kathy Mintun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kenco Logistic Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019L105 (Ill. Cir., March 11, 2019) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on December 26, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-02348. King seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Kenco Logistic Services cite that the class easily exceeds the 100-member requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis for removal. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Tel: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com Kenco Logistic Services is represented by: Jody Kahn Mason, Esq. Jason A. Selvey, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 787-4949 Fax: (312) 787-4995 Email: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com KRONOS INC: Two Claims in Namuwonge Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AISHA NAMUWONGE, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. KRONOS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03239 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Kronos' motion to dismiss the class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Kronos is a leading provider in workforce management software and services. The corporation is best known for its devices that enable employers to process payroll and track employee time. Kronos provides Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. with an employee timekeeping system. Brookdale operates and owns over 1,000 senior living communities in the United States. Namuwonge began working as a utility worker for a Brookdale facility in Cook County, Illinois on Feb. 11, 2019. Brookdale requires employees to enroll in its database system, supplied by Kronos, that scans their fingerprint as a means of authenticating and monitoring time worked. Namuwonge and other Brookdale employees scanned their fingerprint each time they clocked in and clocked out for work. Brookdale subsequently stored Namuwonge's fingerprint data in its Krono database. Namuwonge was never provided with nor signed a written release allowing Kronos or Brookdale to collect, store, use, or disseminate her biometric data. Based on information and belief, Namuwonge alleges that Brookdale failed to inform their employees that they disclose the employees' fingerprint data to third party vendor Kronos. Namuwonge further alleges, also based on information and belief, that Kronos failed to inform Brookdale employees that Kronos disclosed their fingerprints to other third parties, which host data in their data centers. Kronos failed to provide Brookdale employees with a written, publicly available policy explaining their retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data in their possession. Namuwonge further alleges that because Kronos neither publishes a BIPA-mandated data-retention policy nor discloses the purposes for their collection and use of biometric data, Brookdale employees have no idea whether any Defendant sells, discloses, re-discloses, or otherwise disseminates their biometric data. On April 5, 2019, Namuwonge initiated the class action lawsuit against Kronos in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging three separate violations of BIPA's provisions: 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (b), and (d). Namuwonge, individually, and on behalf of the class, seeks to recover liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for negligent violations and $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for intentional or reckless violations. Kronos removed the lawsuit to federal court. Now, Kronos moves to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. First, Kronos contends that Namuwonge failed to adequately plead that Kronos actually possessed Brookdale employees' biometric data as required under provisions 15(a) and 15(d). Because Namuwonge alleges that Kronos did not publish a data-retention policy and it is unclear from the allegations when any retention policy was formulated relative to when Kronos possessed the Brookdale employees' biometric information, Judge Coleman finds the allegations plausible to state a claim. Namuwonge's claim is not temporarily restricted. Furthermore, this outcome is consistent with the Illinois Supreme Court's statements in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp. that BIPA's enforcement mechanism is crucial to ensure compliance by private entities. The Judge will deny the motion to dismiss Count I brought regarding section 15(a). Next, Kronos asserts that Namuwonge fails to allege a section 15(b) claim because she fails to plead facts placing Kronos within any category of collectors of biometric data under BIPA. Namuwonge responds that any private entity that collected biometric data must receive informed consent, which encompasses Kronos. Judge Coleman finds that although Namuwonge asserts that each Defendant systematically and automatically collected, used, stored and disseminated her biometric identifiers, and that she had her biometric identifiers collected by the Defendants, the more precise allegation referred to in Section II makes clear that Brookdale collected the fingerprints using a system that Kronos supplied to Brookdale. Together, these allegations do not plausibly allege that Kronos collected, captured, or otherwise obtained Namuwonge's biometric information. Without more, Namuwonge does not plausibly allege a violation of section 15(b). In light of this, Judge Coleman does not address the parties' arguments regarding whether section 15(b) requires a private entity other than an employer to secure an executed written release, and the Judge will grant Kronos' motion to dismiss the section 15(b) claim. Finally, Kronos asserts that Namuwonge failed to plead negligence, recklessness, or intent, which are additional grounds for dismissal. It argues in the alternative that the Court should strike Namuwonge's prayer for the $5,000 statutory reward based on a reckless or intentional violation. Namuwonge has alleged that Kronos failed to maintain a satisfactory biometric data retention policy, despite BIPA taking effect more than 10 years ago. Judge Coleman finds that the Plaintiff does not allege any substantive details regarding whether the allegations were reckless or intentional. Thus, Namuwonge's claim for damages based on intentional and reckless conduct is dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coleman granted in part and denied in part Kronos' Motion to Dismiss. The Judge granted the Motion as Counts II and III without prejudice and damages for intentional and reckless conduct are stricken without prejudice. The motion is denied as to Count I. If Namuwonge believes that she can cure the deficiencies in her complaint, she may file amended papers with the Court without delay. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/dqIoIv from Leagle.com. Aisha Namuwonge, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine T. Mitchell, Stephan Zouras, LLP, James B. Zouras, Stephan Zouras, LLP & Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan, Zouras, LLP. Kronos, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa Anne Siebert -- masiebert@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Erin Bolan Hines -- ehines@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Ian Macaulay Hansen -- ihansen@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.l.p.. LADENBURG THALMANN: Scarantino Challenges Sale to Advisor Group --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LADENBURG THALMANN FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., HENRY C. BEINSTEIN, GLENN C. DAVIS, BRIAN S. GENSON, RICHARD M. KRASNO, RICHARD J. LAMPEN, MICHAEL S. LIEBOWITZ, HOWARD M. LORBER, JACQUELINE M. SIMKIN, MARK ZEITCHICK, ADAM MALAMED, ADVISOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., and HARVEST MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02266-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 12, 2019), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Ladenburg will be acquired by Advisor Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Harvest Merger Sub, Inc. On November 11, 2019, Ladenburg Thalmann's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Advisor Group. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ladenburg Thalmann's stockholders will receive $3.50 in cash for each share of Ladenburg Thalmann common stock they own. On December 6, 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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement: omits material information regarding the company's financial projections and the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Jefferies LLC; and fails to disclose whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing the counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company. Without the omitted 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, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff is the owner of Ladenburg Thalmann common stock. Ladenburg Thalmann is a diversified financial services company. The company's subsidiaries include industry-leading independent advisory and brokerage firms Securities America, Triad Advisors, Securities Service Network, Investacorp, and KMS Financial Services, as well as Premier Trust, Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management, Highland Capital Brokerage, a leading independent life insurance brokerage company and full-service annuity processing and marketing company, and Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., an investment bank that has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange for over 135 years. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com LEAD GENERATION: Reynoso's Cert. Bid OK'd; April 30 Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Mary M. Rowland grants the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a class in the lawsuit captioned Servando Reynoso, et al. v. Lead Generation Services, et al., Case No. 1:19−cv−04025 (N.D. Ill.). According to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry, hearing was held on the Plaintiffs/Counter−Claim Defendants Servando Reynoso and Kailei Bond's motion to dismiss and/or motions for more defined statement. For the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiffs' motion is denied. Judge Rowland also rules that the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a class is granted. Notice will not be permitted by facsimile and there will be no tolling, Judge Rowland says. Judge Rowland adds that parties are to confer and work out the Notice, which will be sent to the Court's proposed order mailbox by January 17, 2020, for approval. Status hearing is set for April 30, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.[CC] LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 3, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments, Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada. MARQUEE BROADCASTING: Price Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Candace Price, individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARQUEE BROADCASTING, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00006-GNS (W.D. Ky., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant does not pay overtime to any of its employees titled Reported or Anchor or both, says the complaint. The Defendant neither disclosed to its employees titled Reporter/Anchor that their salaries are intended to cover hours over forty in a workweek nor that they will be paid overtime. The Plaintiff alleges the these employees worked more than 40 hours in a week in more than one workweek without payment of overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The Defendant is engaged in the broadcasting business and produces television news programming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MAZAHERI & MAZAHERI 325 N St Paul St., Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 461-9458 Email: bernie@thelaborfirm.com MEDLEY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Lax and Dicristino Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend the lawsuits, 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, pending in New York state court. 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. 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., Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Sierra Income Corporation, and Sierra Management, Inc. 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 Sierra, 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 is scheduled to take place on December 17, 2019. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the New York Actions are without merit and they intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Medley Capital said, "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." Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of small and middle market companies. The Company is based in New York, New York. MEDLEY CAPITAL: Parties at Odds on Contingent Fee Award ------------------------------------------------------- Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the settlement of the lawsuit over the Company's merger deal with Sierra Income Corporation are in disagreement on the computation of the Contingent Fee Award, and have submitted different forms of the proposed form of order and final judgment. On August 9, 2018, the Company entered into a definitive agreement to merge with Sierra Income Corporation ("Sierra"). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and between the Company and Sierra (the "MCC Merger Agreement"), the Company would, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the MCC Merger Agreement, merge with and into Sierra, with Sierra as the surviving entity (the "Combined Company") in the merger (the "MCC Merger"). On February 11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was commenced in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by FrontFour Capital Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd. (together, "FrontFour"), captioned as FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et al. v. Brook Taube et al., Case No. 2019-0100 against defendants Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, Sierra, the Company, MCC Advisors, 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 the Company's stockholders in connection with the MCC Merger, and that MDLY, Sierra, MCC Advisors, 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 Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and between MCC and Sierra. 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 Court denied the plaintiffs' requests to (i) permanently enjoin the proposed merger and (ii) require the Company to conduct a "shopping process" for the Company on terms proposed by the plaintiffs in their complaint. The Court held that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the proposed merger, but rejected the plaintiffs' claim that Sierra 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 the Company's stockholders on the proposed 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 Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Altman v. Taube, Case No. 2019-0219 (the "Altman Action"). The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders of the Company in connection with the vote of the Company's stockholders on the proposed mergers. On April 8, 2019, the Court granted a stipulation consolidating the FrontFour Action and the Altman Action, designating the amended complaint in the FrontFour Action as the operative complaint, and designating the plaintiffs in the FrontFour 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 FrontFour Action, which were contained in a term sheet, dated April 15, 2019. On July 29, 2019, MCC entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (and, as amended on August 8, 2019, the "Stipulation") by and among the Company, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, MCC Advisors, 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 the Company, on the other hand, in connection with the FrontFour Action. The Stipulation provides for the settlement of all claims brought against the Medley Parties in the FrontFour Action. Under the Stipulation, the Company agreed to seek the agreement and/or consent of Sierra 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 amended and restated 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 $17 million in cash and $30 million of Sierra stock, with the number of shares of Sierra stock to be calculated using the pro forma net asset value 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 amendments to the Merger Agreements that have been reflected in the amended and restated Merger Agreements annexed to the Stipulation. In addition, in connection with the Stipulation, on July 29, 2019, the Company 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 FrontFour Action. The Medley Parties will also release all claims arising out of or relating to the prosecution and settlement of the FrontFour 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 the Company 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 Court. On September 26, 2019, FrontFour filed a motion seeking an order approving the Stipulation, and also moved for the Court to award plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $22 million and expenses in the amount of $420,334.97 (the "Fee Application"). The Court held a hearing to consider the Stipulation and the Fee Application on October 24, 2019. On November 19, 2019, the Court issued a bench ruling approving the Stipulation. The Court also awarded attorney's fees as follows: (i) an award of $3,000,000 to lead plaintiffs' counsel and $75,000 to counsel to plaintiff Stephen Altman (the "Therapeutics Fee Award") and (ii) an award in an amount equal to 26% of the nominal value of the settlement fund, grossed up to include the amount of the lead plaintiffs' counsel's attorney's fees, and excluding the portion of the fees borne by the class under the Amended MCC Merger Agreement, as well as an award of $100,000 relating to the composition of the board of directors of the post-Merger company (the "Contingent Fee Award" and, together with the Therapeutics Fee Award, the "Fee Awards"). The parties disagreed as to how to apply the formula that the Court indicated will be used to calculate the Contingent Fee Award. Accordingly, the parties submitted different forms of the proposed form of order and final judgment, as applicable, for review and entry by the Court, together with letter briefs setting forth their respective interpretations of the Court's November 19, 2019 bench ruling. The Plaintiff contends that the amount of the Contingent Fee Award is fixed at $14,540,888. Defendants contend that the amount will be less than $14,540,888, but the actual amount cannot be determined prior to closing. The Therapeutics Fee Award will be payable within five (5) business days of the entry of an order and judgment by the Court. The Contingent Fee Award is contingent upon the closing of the MCC Merger, and will be due within five business days of the closing of the MCC Merger and establishment of the Settlement Fund. The Fee Awards will be paid by MCC or its successor. Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of small and middle market companies. The Company is based in New York, New York. MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits Ongoing in Virginia & Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action lawsuits in Virginia and Pennsylvania 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. 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. 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 Capital Corporation is a business development company. The fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of small and middle market companies. The Company is based in New York, New York. MEGATEL HOMES: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Quentin Cody Lee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Megatel Homes, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00056-N (N.D. Tex., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act over improperly paid overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay its workers for all hours of work at the rates required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime for doing this excessive work. Instead, the Defendant misclassified its employees as exempt from the protections of the FLSA and failed to pay the Plaintiff one-and-a-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from March 2016 to May 2017. Megatel Homes, LLC is a new home builder that builds homes in Texas and elsewhere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Elizabeth Beck, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1910 Pacific Ave., Ste. 12000 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 Email: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com beck@l-b-law.com gasper@l-b-law.com - and - Jill J. Weinberg, Esq. WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC 6425 Willow Creek Drive Plano, TX 75093 Phone: (972) 403-3330 Email: jillwlfirm@gmail.com MERIT MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, reminds investors of the deadline to file claims against Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (MMSI) for possible breaches of Federal Securities law. The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Merit Medical reported fourth quarter 2018 and fiscal year 2018 results and established financial guidance for 2019, including core revenue growth of 8%-10%. According to the filed complaint, Merit Medical is a leading manufacturer and marketer of proprietary disposable medical devices used in interventional, diagnostic, and therapeutic procedures, particularly in cardiology, radiology, oncology, critical care, and endoscopy. During 2018, Merit Medical acquired three companies. Specifically, in February 2018, the Company completed the acquisition of Becton, Dickinson and Company and on November 13, 2018, the Company completed the acquisition of Cianna Medical, Inc. ("Cianna"), which makes products for the treatment of breast cancer, for up to $200 million, making it Merit Medical's largest-ever acquisition. Thereafter, in December 2018, the Company completed its acquisition of Vascular Insights, LLC ("Vascular Insights"), and acquired its ClariVein product, for up to $60 million. On October 30, 2019, after the market closed, Merit Medical issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2019 financial results, reporting non-GAAP EPS of $0.28, well below consensus estimates of $0.45, reducing fiscal year 2019 guidance, and completely withdrawing fiscal year 2020 guidance. Following this news, the Company's stock price declined more than 29%, from a close of $29.11 per share on October 30, 2019 to a close of $20.66 per share on October 31, 2019. The filed complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the integrations of Cianna and Vascular Insights, including their products, salespeople, and R&D facilities, had caused operational disruptions and reduced sales and were months behind schedule; (b) sales of acquired company products had slowed substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular for Vascular Insights' products which, as late as July 2019, had zero orders during fiscal year 2019; and (c) in light of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was made without a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Merit Medical between February 26, 2019 and October 30, 2019 and wish to discuss the legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. The deadline for filing is February 3, 2020. You may contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting http://www.brodskysmith.com/?post_type=cases&p=13407&preview=true, or by calling toll free 877-534-2590. Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] MERIT MEDICAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Merit Medical Systems, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMSI) Class Period: February 26, 2019 - October 30, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 3, 2020 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the integrations of Cianna and Vascular Insights, including their products, sales people, and R&D facilities, had caused operational disruptions and reduced sales and were months behind schedule; (2) that sales of acquired company products had slowed substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular for Vascular Insights products which, as late as July 2019, had zero orders during fiscal 2019; and (3) that in light of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was made without a reasonable basis. To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] MIRENESSE COSMETICS: Tillery Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE TILLERY, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. MIRENESSE COSMETICS, Case No. 3:19-cv-08106 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Mirenesse bombarded consumers' phones with marketing text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system. Ms. Tillery alleges that on November 2, 2019, she messaged "STOP:" to Mirenesse in order to get it to stop sending her automated text messages. However, notwithstanding her request, Mirenesse continued to send automated text messages to her cellular telephone, she contends. Mirenesse Cosmetics is a privately owned Australian company with its principal place of business in Melbourne, Australia, in the Australian state of Victoria. Mirenesse sells its products in Australia, Europe, Asia and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com yana@kazlg.com MOBILE MINI DEALER: Daisy Inc. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daisy, Inc., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. MOBILE MINI DEALER, INC., MOBILE MINI I, INC., Arizona corporations, and MOBILE MINI, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00017 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 10, 2020), challenges the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Defendants have sent, and continue to send, unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the TCPA, including to those advertisements sent to the Plaintiff. The fax promotes the availability and quality of the Defendants' property, goods, or services. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of those who received marketing messages from the Defendants, including faxes sent to the Plaintiff and other advertisements sent without proper opt-out language or without prior express invitation or permission, whether sent to the Plaintiff or not. Plaintiff, DAISY, INC., is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business within this judicial district. MOBILE MINI DEALER, INC. and MOBILE MINI I, INC. are Arizona corporations, and MOBILE MINI, INC., is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: 847-368-1500 Fax: 847-368-1501 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com MORGAN STANLEY: Briefing Scheds in Harvey & Chen Labor Suits Moved ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02835-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Joint Stipulation Regarding the Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff Harvey's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Enhancement Award and the Chen Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. Plaintiff Harvey and Defendant Morgan ("together, the Harvey Parties") and the Plaintiffs in the case of Chen et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court of California (the "Chen Plaintiffs") submitted the instant Joint Stipulation. On Nov. 14, 2019, Harvey filed his Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Enhancement Award with a hearing date of Feb. 5, 2020 per the Court's Sept. 6, 2019 order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Also on Nov. 14, 2019, the Chen plaintiffs filed two motions also with hearing dates on Feb. 5, 2010 -- a Motion to Intervene and a Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. The Harvey Parties and the Chen Plaintiffs have since agreed to a mutually agreeable alternate briefing schedule for the briefs related to the motions for attorney fees and motion to intervene. Specifically, they requested that the Court sets the following briefing schedule for the motions for attorneys' fees and motion to intervene: (1) any opposition to the motions for attorneys' fees and motion to intervene will be filed on Dec. 18, 2019; and (2) any reply brief(s) will be filed on Jan. 16, 2020. All parties agreed that the alternate briefing schedule will provide sufficient time for the parties to draft their briefs and prepare for the anticipated Feb. 5, 2020 hearing date. Judge Orrick granted the Joint Stipulation that (i) any opposition to the motions for attorneys' fees and motion to intervene will be filed on Dec. 18, 2019; and (ii) any reply brief(s) will be filed on Jan. 16, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/iwgNuL from Leagle.com. Brandon Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Joseph Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law Firm, David Samuel Markun -- dmarkun@mczlaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP, George Ryan Nemiroff -- gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law Firm, James F. Clapp -- jclapp@sdlaw.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP, Jeffrey Karl Compton -- jcompton@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP & Marita Murphy Lauinger -- mlauinger@clapplegal.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Defendant, represented by Lynne C. Hermle -- lchermle@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Andrew Ralston Livingston -- alivingston@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Benjamin R. Buchwalter -- bbuchwalter@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Jinnifer Darlene Pitcher -- jpitcher@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe & Katie Elizabeth Briscoe -- kbriscoe@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP. MYLAN NV: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifes Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Mylan N.V. (NASDAQ: MYL) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Mylan securities between May 9, 2018 and May 6, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/myl. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants 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. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/myl or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Mylan you have until February 14, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com [GN] MYLAN NV: 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 Mylan N.V. (NASDAQ: MYL) for violations of Secs. 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 May 9, 2018 and May 6, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period), are encouraged to contact the firm before February 14, 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. Mylan was in violation of FDA's Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations at its Morgantown facility. Fixing the problems would require the Company to undertake an extensive remediation program. This massive effort would, in turn, impact the Company's North American segment, hurting its financial performance. The Company failed to maintain effective controls on financial reporting. 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 Mylan, 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 Email: info@schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com [GN] NORDSON CORP: Continues to Defend Ortiz Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, California, initiated by a former employee of the company. On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings, polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide. Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Westlake, Ohio. OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Continues to Defend Stirling Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO. On September 17, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Mark Butler (then serving as the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors), Jay Stasz (the Company's Chief Financial Officer), and John Swygert (then serving as the Company's Chief Operational Officer). The complaint alleges that, in public statements between June 6, 2019, and August 28, 2019, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information about the Company's earnings, projections, supply chain, and inventory. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Ollie's said, "We believe the case to be without merit." Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. is a highly differentiated and fast-growing, extreme value retailer of brand name merchandise at drastically reduced prices. Known for its assortment of products offered as "Good Stuff Cheap," the company offers customers a broad selection of brand name products, including housewares, food, books and stationery, bed and bath, flooring, toys and hardware. The company is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. ONCOSEC MEDICAL: Alpha Holdings Class Action Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Medical Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Alpha Holdings, Inc. On October 29, 2019, the company's stockholder, Alpha Holdings, Inc., filed two actions in the district court, Clark County, Nevada, that concern the proposed equity investment in the Company (the "Proposed Transaction") by (i) Grand Decade Developments Limited, a British Virgin Islands limited company and a wholly owned subsidiary of China Grand Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Holdings Limited and (ii) Sirtex Medical US Holdings, Inc., an affiliate of CGP. The first action, asserted against the Company only, seeks to compel the Company to make its books and records available for inspection, so that Alpha can solicit proxies from other stockholders in connection with the vote to approve the Proposed Transaction. The second section, a putative class action asserted against the Company, certain directors on the OncoSec Board, Sirtex and Grand Decade, seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Proposed Transaction, based on a claim that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to make complete and accurate disclosures concerning the Proposed Transaction, (ii) adopting improper defensive measures to preclude the Company from pursuing alternatives to the Proposed Transaction, and (iii) running an inadequate "sales process" that failed to obtain the highest value reasonably available. This second action also asserts a claim that Sirtex and CGP aided and abetted the Director Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Company finds no merits in Alpha's claims and expects to continue to defend the suits vigorously. Oncosec Medical Incorporated a late-stage biotechnology company focused on designing, developing and commercializing innovative therapies and proprietary medical approaches to stimulate and to guide an anti-tumor immune response for the treatment of cancer. The company is based in Pennington, New Jersey. ORACLE CORP: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the defendants are awaiting the court's decision on a motion to dismiss the class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, its Chief Technology Officer, its then‑two Chief Executive Officers, two other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive. Mark V. Hurd, one of the company's Chief Executive Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business. Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged in insider trading. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief. On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On October 17, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the motion but has not yet issued a decision. Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it." Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts, and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. PEPPER'S MIAMI: Rodriguez Claims Overtime for Hours Over 40 ----------------------------------------------------------- Harold Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pepper's Miami Beach, LLC, Aspis Group LLC, David Gonzalez and Gonzalo F. Leon, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-25297, (S.D. Fla., December 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants used to operate as Peppers Authentico Mexicano where Rodriguez worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee, bartending, taking food orders and preparing drinks for customers from November 2016 through on or about February 2019. He claims to be denied overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours in certain weeks throughout the duration of his employment. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Staroschak, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Tel: (313) 251-1399 Fax: (313) 739-1975 Email: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the appeal by the plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., remains pending. On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators, including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental Policy Act. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio. Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. The potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding leases. On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing, the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs. The motion remains pending. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all three of Plaintiffs' motions. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending as of the filing date of these financial statements. Petro River said, "There is no specific timeline by which the Court of Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue to vigorously defend its interest in this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Petro River Oil Corp., an independent energy company, focuses on the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets. It primarily holds interests in the Mid-Continent Region in Oklahoma, including Osage County and Kay County, Oklahoma. The company is based in New York, New York. PINK PONY: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Ligon Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leah Ligon, an individual; Carla Campbell, an individual; and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PINK PONY, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; DEWAYNE ALLEN LEVESQUE, and individual; SAM RODRIGUEZ, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00067 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 9, 2020), seeks to recover damages due to the Defendants' failure to pay according to the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as dancers from 2017 through 2018, allege that they were denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify them and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants illegally absconded with their tips. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Defendants also forced illegal kickbacks in the form of house fees that the Plaintiffs were required to pay, just to work. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq. FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC 14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 722-6977 Fax: (786) 870-4030 Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law - and - Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. KRISTENSEN, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com - and - Craft Hughes, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Phone: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 Email: craft@hughesellzey.com PLITEK LLC: Soyka Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Soyka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLITEK, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 2020CH00354 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendant, for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from its illegal actions in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its employees (and former employees), who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints. If the Defendant's databases of digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in August 2017. The Defendant is an Illinois limited liability company with its headquarters in Des Plaines, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com PORT AUTHORITY OF NY/NJ: Union Workers Sue Over CBA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Heydweiler, Kerry Breen, Marco Fornaro Jr. and Joseph Calandra, and other similarly situated current and former laborers, Plaintiff, v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Defendant, Case No. 721492/2019, (N.Y. Sup., December 26, 2019), seeks declaratory relief against Defendants for their unlawful actions, compensation for wages that were illegally deducted, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs were union-represented port employees. Defendant allegedly failed to negotiate Plaintiffs' union contracts, including annual general wage increases during their employment and failed to pay retroactive wages in accordance with their agreements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Tenenbaum, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM P.C. 595 Stewart Avenue, Suite 400 Garden City, NY 11750 Tel: (516) 750-0595 Website: http://jtnylaw.com/ PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Final Judgment in Mild Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has issued final judgment in the case TREVOR MILD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., MICHAEL H. McGARRY, VINCENT J. MORALES, and MARK C. KELLY, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04231-RGK-JEM (C.D. Cal.). The Parties have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 1, 2019 that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the Released Claims on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court. By Order dated July 25, 2019, the Court issued its Preliminary Approval Order. Due and adequate notice has been given to the Settlement Class. The Court conducted the Settlement Hearing on Oct. 21, 2019. Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed and proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and the record in the Action, and good cause appearing therefor, Judge Klausner entered final judgment in the case. The Judge affirmed the Court's determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired PPG common stock between Jan. 19, 2017 through May 10, 2018, inclusive and who were damaged thereby. The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in the Action by the Lead Plaintiff and the other Settlement Class Members are dismissed with prejudice. The Parties will bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Stipulation. Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a plan of allocation and the motion of the Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Judge Klausner finds that the Defendants have satisfied their financial obligations under the Stipulation by causing their insurers to pay $25 million in cash to the Settlement Fund. Without further order of the Court, the Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any provisions of the Settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/5n2zDI from Leagle.com. Trevor Mild, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm PA. Joe Cammarata, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Jason L. Krajcer, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Leanne Heine Solish, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy -- LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Peter A. Binkow -- PBINKOW@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry & Vincent J. Morales, Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Levander, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Catherine V. Wigglesworth, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, David H. Stern, Dechert LLP, Michael L. Kichline, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Roger A. Dixon, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart T. Steinberg -- stuart.steinberg@dechert.com --Dechert LLP, pro hac vice & Tiffany E. Engsell -- tiffany.engsell@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice. Mark C. Kelly, Defendant, represented by Anne Johnson Palmer, Ropes and Gray LLP, David I. Hurwitz, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow, David H. Stern, Dechert LLP, Gregory L. Demers -- Gregory.Demers@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice & R. Daniel O'Connor -- Daniel.OConnor@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice. PREMIER FIRE: King Seeks $6,804 in Unpaid Wages and Other Relief ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph King, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PREMIER FIRE ALARMS & INTEGRATION SYSTEM, INSTALLATION DIVISION, INC., a Florida Corporation, and MATTHEW HAIMAN, individually, Case No. 0:20-cv-60064-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 10, 2020), seeks to recover compensation amounting to $6,804 in unpaid wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants require the Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee under the FLSA, to work in excess of 40 hours per work week, but willfully refused to properly compensate him for such work, in violation of the FLSA. Over the course of his employment, the Plaintiff is owed approximately $6,720 in unpaid compensation. Additionally, when the Plaintiff would work actual overtime hours in addition to these 42.5 hours, those hours would be paid months later, but in straight time cash, for which the Plaintiff has conservatively calculated to be an additional $84, says the complaint. Thus, the Plaintiff is owed $6,804 in unpaid wages. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt employee by the Defendants. The Defendants were the employer or former employer of the Plaintiff and is conducting business in this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. David M. Cozad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588 Sunrise, FL 33323 Phone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 Email: chad@levylevylaw.com david@levylevylaw.com PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Pill Balks at Lantheus Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ANN MACDOUGALL, GERARD BER, BRADLEY L. CAMPBELL, ERIC J. ENDE, KAREN JEAN FERRANTE, HEINZ MAUSLI, and DAVID W. MIMS, Case No. 1:19-cv-02268-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 12, 2019), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Lantheus Holdings, Inc. will acquire Progenics. On October 1, 2019, Progenics' Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Lantheus, a Delaware corporation, and Plato Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Lantheus. In accordance with the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progenics, leaving Progenics as the surviving company in the Merger as a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Lantheus. Each share of Progenics common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time (other than those owned by Lantheus, Progenics, or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries) will be automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive 0.2502 shares of Lantheus common stock. On November 12, 2019, the Defendants filed a Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Registration Statement omits certain material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, says the complaint. In soliciting shareholder approval for the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants caused the issuance of the Registration Statement, which purports to contain an overview of the Proposed Transaction, but omits certain critical information, rendering portions of the Registration Statement materially incomplete and/or misleading, in violation of the Exchange Act provisions. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement omits material information concerning the opinion rendered by Jefferies LLC, the financial advisor retained by the Company, dated as of October 1, 2019, which found that the exchange ratio specified in the Merger Agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to the holders of Progenics common stock. Failure to provide the information satisfactorily not only undermines the ability of Progenics' shareholders to make an informed decision as to the Merger, but also calls into question Jefferies' opinion as to the fairness of the Merger, the Plaintiff contends. As a result, Progenics shareholders lack material information necessary to allow them to make an informed decision concerning whether or not to vote in favor of the Merger, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff is and has been the owner of Progenics common stock. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants' wrongdoing. According to the Company's March 2019 Form 10-K, Progenics "is an oncology company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative targeted medicines and artificial intelligence to find, fight and follow cancer." The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Properly Pay Cleaners, Gray Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Gray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a CUSTOM CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE, and MARLENE CORNACHIO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00054-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 10, 2020), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act arising from the Defendants' failure to properly pay the Plaintiff and other cleaners. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a workweek when counting all work time under the continuous workday rule. The Plaintiff and others were required to go into the Defendants' office approximately an hour before their shifts to receive job assignments. The Plaintiff says this time was not paid. The Plaintiff and the class were also required to travel back to the Defendants' office to turn in their time sheets and return the Defendant-provided vehicle, as applicable. This time was also unpaid, says the complaint. The Defendants' failure to pay for the pre-shift work before the day's first job, failure to pay drive time, and failure to pay the post-shift work resulted in minimum wage and/or overtime violations, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly cleaner. The Defendants are and have been individually and jointly in the business of providing residential and commercial cleaning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on December 20, 2019, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned Frampton Living Trust v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., No. 19-cv-3133 (D. Minn.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client Frampton Living Trust against Resideo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: REZI), and certain officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased shares of Resideo's common stock between October 10, 2018 and October 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. Resideo is a global provider of products, software, solutions, and technologies that help homeowners stay connected and in control of their comfort, security, and energy use. The Company also provides home heating, ventilation and air conditioning controls, security solutions, and is a distributor of security and low-voltage electronics products. The Company was formed through a spin-off from Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell"). The Action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning Resideo's business and financial condition, including its forecasted financial results. Specifically, the Action alleges that Defendants failed to disclose the following true facts, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (i) the negative effects of the spin-off were more substantial and persistent than disclosed and had negatively affected the Company's sales, supply chain, and gross margins; (ii) Resideo faced serious competition for its products, including competition from Honeywell; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial guidance lacked a reasonable basis and the Company was not on track to make its 2019 guidance as claimed. The truth about the issues plaguing Resideo was revealed through a series of disclosures, culminating with the material reduction of the Company's long-reaffirmed 2019 guidance. First, on March 7, 2019, Resideo issued its financial results for the fourth quarter and full-year 2018. On this date, the Company also announced that it was lowering its 2019 financial forecasts. The Company further revealed that the profitability of certain business segments had been impacted by costs related to the spin-off. This disappointing news caused Resideo shares to decline by over 23 percent on March 7, 2019. Second, on August 7, 2019, after the close of trading, Resideo issued its financial results for the second quarter of 2019, disclosing that the Company's earnings had come in below estimates. The following day, on the Company's pre-market earnings call with analysts and investors, Defendants further revealed that Resideo was experiencing margin pressures due to product mix headwinds, including the sale of lower margin devices. On this news, the Company's share price declined by 2.4 percent from its opening price. As the market continued to digest the disappointing news, Resideo common stock further declined by approximately 3.7 percent on August 9, 2019, and declined by approximately 5.2 percent the following trading day on August 12, 2019. After the close of trading on October 22, 2019, Resideo released preliminary financial results for the third quarter, and surprised investors by announcing earnings that significantly missed estimates. The Company also materially reduced its earnings guidance for 2019. The drivers of these disappointing results were the lower sales of thermostats and the performance of the RTS business. That same day, the Company announced the abrupt resignation of the Company's Chief Financial Officer. In response to these disclosures, the price of Resideo stock declined by over 37 percent. If you purchased Resideo common stock during the Class Period, and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota no later than January 7, 2020. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com. Frampton Living Trust is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN] RIVERSIDE PARTNERS: Rosado Files False Product Labeling Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Candice Rosado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Riverside Partners L.L.C. and Nustef Baking Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07228 (E.D. N.Y., December 26, 2019), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Riverside Partners and Nustef Baking manufacture, distribute, market, label and sell French vanilla traditional Italian waffle cookies known as pizzelles. Plaintiff alleges that their vanilla-flavored drinks contain vanilla flavor or vanilla extract despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 303-0552 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com ROBERT SILLERMAN: Ct Enters Final Judgment Dismissing Guevoura Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal in the case, GUEVOURA FUND LTD., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN, D. GEOFFREY ARMSTRONG, JOHN MILLER and MICHAEL JOHN MEYER, Defendants, Case Nos. 1:15-cv-07192-CM, 1:18-cv-09784-CM (S.D. N.Y.). The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement and Providing for Notice to the Class dated July 30, 2019. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge McMahon granted final class certification of the Class in the Action consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SFX common stock during the period between Feb. 25, 2015 and Nov. 17, 2015, inclusive. She confirmed the appointments of Lead Plaintiff Guevoura Fund Ltd. as the Class Representative, and Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation as the Class Counsel. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Judge approved the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and finds that said Settlement, and all transactions preparatory and incident thereto, is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to, and is in the best interests of the Lead Plaintiff and all the Class Members based on. The parties are directed to perform the terms of the Stipulation, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter and docket the Final Judgment in the Action. The Judge approved the Plan of Allocation as set forth in the Notice as fair and equitable. She directed the Claims Administrator, under the supervision of the Lead Counsel, to proceed with the processing of the Proofs of Claim and the administration of the Settlement pursuant to the terms of the Plan of Allocation and, upon completion of the claims processing procedure, to present to the Court a proposed final distribution order for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible Class Members, as provided in the Stipulation and Plan of Allocation. The Judge awarded and directed payment, as provided in the Stipulation, to the Lead Counsel of their out-of-pocket litigation expenses in the amount of $248,214.01, and attorneys' fees equal to 33 1/3% of the Director Defendants' Contribution, with interest to accrue on such amounts at the same rate and for the same periods as has accrued by the Settlement Fund from the date of the Final Judgment to the date of actual payment of said attorneys' fees and expenses from the Director Defendants' Contribution to the Lead Counsel as provided in the Stipulation; and attorneys' fees equal to 33 1/3% of the Sillerman Contribution, or portion(s) of the Sillerman Contribution paid, if or when paid into the Settlement Fund, with interest to accrue on such amount(s) at the same rate and for the same periods as has accrued with respect to the payment(s) of the Sillerman Contribution by the Settlement Fund from the date of the payment(s) of the Sillerman Contribution to the date of actual payment of said attorneys' fees to the Lead Counsel. The Lead Counsel will thereafter allocate the attorneys' fees among any other attorney or firm who has appeared in the Action on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff or the Class whose services or retention were approved in advance by the Lead Plaintiff in a manner in which the Lead Counsel in good faith believes reflects the contributions of such counsel to the initiation, prosecution, and resolution of the Action. The Judge approved an award of $10,000 of reasonable costs and expenses to the Lead Plaintiff directly relating to its representation of the Class. The Lead Counsel may apply, from time to time, for any fees and/or expenses incurred by them solely in connection with the administration of the Settlement and distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to the Class Members. All payments of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to the Lead Counsel in the Action will be made from the Settlement Fund, and the Released Parties will have no liability or responsibility for the payment of any of the Lead Counsel's attorneys' fees or expenses except as expressly provided in the Stipulation with respect to the cost of the Notice and administration of the Settlement. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, any putative Class Member had the right to request exclusion from the Class or object to any aspect of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, the Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and/or the Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of its time, by requesting such exclusion from the Class or asserting such objection(s), in writing, in the manner provided for by the Preliminary Approval Order. Judge McMahon rules that the Action is dismissed with prejudice and all the Released Claims against each and all the Released Parties and without costs to any of the parties as against the others. The Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal is a final judgment in the Action as to all claims asserted. The Judge finds, for purposes of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs entry of judgment as set forth. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2019 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://is.gd/phKMpr from Leagle.com. In Re Robert Francis Xavier Sillerman, Plaintiff, represented by Sanford Philip Rosen -- srosen@rosenpc.com -- Sanford P. Rosen & Associates, P.C. Edward S. Gutman, Plaintiff, represented by Nancy Kaboolian , Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP. Guevoura Fund Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. Piven, Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, Daniel Kuznicki -- kuznicki@browerpiven.com -- Kuznicki Law, PLLC, Yelena Trepetin, Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation & David A.P. Brower -- brower@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven. Wilfrid Global Opportunity Fund LP, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Lynne M. Fischman Uniman, Andrews Kurth LLP. Wilfrid Aubrey LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Nancy Kaboolian, Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP. David Chan, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm. Phillip Alfeld, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton, Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Rong Liu, Movant, represented by Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Robert F.X. Sillerman, Defendant, pro se. D. Geoffrey Armstrong, John Miller & Michael John Meyer, Defendants, represented by Aaron Frank Miner -- aaron.miner@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Catherine Barry Schumacher -- catherine.schumacher@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Stephanna Francesca Szotkowski -- stephanna.szotkowski@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Vincent Anthony Sama -- vincent.sama@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. SCI COLORADO: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Tarpinian Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Tarpinian, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. SCI Colorado Funeral Services, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-03522 (D. Colo., Dec. 12, 2019), alleges that SCI violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate employees at "time and one-half" their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked, the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, and all earned wages immediately upon termination. The class and collective action seeks to recover damages and backpay to compensate all current and former employees of SCI for these wage violations. The Plaintiff was employed with SCI as a family service counselor from March 2015 through July 2017, in August 2018, and in June 2019. As a family service counselor, the Plaintiff made cold calls to potential clients and called existing clients concerning funeral and cremation services provided by SCI. SCI provides funeral and cremation services in Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory E. Givens, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY E. GIVENS, P.C. 18 N. Sierra Madre Street, Suite E Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: 719-291-4353 E-mail: gegivens@hotmail.com SEAGLE PIZZA: Thompson Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons v. SEAGLE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a Domino's Pizza and JOSEPH M. SEAGLE, individually, Case No. 3:20-cv-00016-JRW (W.D. Ky., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, as well as under the Kentucky common law to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers. The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants fail to reimburse at all for the use of their vehicles, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants use a flawed method to determining reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wage to fall below the minimum during some or all workweeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deliver driver from June 2019 to September 2019. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Phone: (502) 636-4333 Email: davids@bsjfirm.com - and - Joe P. Leniski, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com - and - Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com SHANAHAN ENGINEERING: Moore Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA, OPPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Moore, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. SHANAHAN ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-09992 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 9, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime as required by the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, says the complaint. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a work week. Plaintiff Moore was hired by the Defendant in January 2017. Shanahan Engineering. Inc. is a worldwide company that provides construction, commission and plant operation on large scale projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor W. Howell, Esq. HOWELL LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 158511 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 406-1416 Facsimile: (615) 373-8206 Email: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com SHIFTPIXY INC: Continues to Defend Splond Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Corey Splond. On April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, naming ShiftPixy, Inc. and its client as defendants, claiming that he was scheduled to work for more than 8 hours during 24-hour periods without being paid overtime, to which he was entitled. In addition, claimant is seeking waiting time penalties for the delay in payment. This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the financial impact to the Company, if any, cannot be estimated. No liability has been recorded for this matter at this time. In the event of an unfavorable outcome the Company's client is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for misreported hours and portions of the claim would be covered under the Company’s employment practices liability insurance. ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor, human resources consultant, and administrator of workers' compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant, hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Sees $250,000 Loss in California Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- SIFCO Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the Company has recorded an estimated loss of $250,000 as of September 30, 2019 in the class action suit arising from wage-and-hour claims under California law, filed in August 2017. The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, which was filed in August 2017, arising from employee wage-and-hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, hourly and overtime wage calculation, timely wage payment and necessary expenditure indemnification violations; failure to maintain required wage records and furnish accurate wage statements; and unfair competition, which is similar to the one previously settled in fiscal 2018. SIFCO said, "As mentioned previously, the Company records reserves for legal disputes and other matters in accordance with GAAP, the ultimate outcomes of these types of matters are inherently uncertain. Actual results may differ significantly from current estimates. Given the current status of this matter, the Company recorded an estimated loss of $250[,000] as of September 30, 2019." SIFCO Industries, Inc. produces and sells forgings and machined components primarily for the aerospace and energy markets in the United States and Europe. It was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Circuit Flips Dismissal of Naimi Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order granting Starbucks' motion to dismiss the case OLIVER NAIMI; THOMAS WESSEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-55975 (9th Cir.). Plaintiffs Naimi and Wessel brought a putative class action against Starbucks and related entities, asserting claims under California and New York consumer protection statutes and common law. The district court granted Starbucks' motion to dismiss, holding that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that Starbucks' "Doubleshot Espresso" product label makes a false representation. On appeal, the Appellate Court decides only whether the Plaintiffs' claims are sufficiently plausible to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Appellate Court reversed, as the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived by the product's label. First, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the product's label conveys the implied representation that each can of the beverage contains two shots of espresso brewed from the same beans Starbucks uses in its cafés. Second, they've plausibly alleged that the canned beverage contains less than two shots of Starbucks brand espresso, thus rendering the label's implied representation false. Plaintiffs conducted laboratory testing that compared the caffeine content of 20 cans of the canned beverage to the caffeine content of 20 samples of two shots of espresso purchased at multiple Starbucks locations. As an alternative ground for dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims arising under New York General Business Law Sections 349-350, the district court held that the Plaintiffs failed to plead a cognizable theory of injury, as required under those statutes, because they pleaded a flawed "deception-as-injury" theory. Under New York law, a plaintiff's allegation that she would not have purchased a product but for a deceptive act, standing alone, is not a cognizable injury because it conflates the deceptive act with the injury. Instead, a plaintiff must show that she did not receive the full value of her purchase, by alleging (for instance) that she paid a price premium due to the deception. The complaint alleged that the Plaintiffs paid a price premium for the canned beverage. That said, they did not allege how much they paid for the beverage, how much they would have paid for it absent the alleged deception, whether Starbucks (as opposed to a third-party distributor) was responsible for any overpayment, or any other details regarding the price premium. The bare recitation of the word "premium" does not adequately allege a cognizable injury. Because it is not clear that amendment would be futile, the Plaintiffs should be afforded an opportunity on remand to amend their complaint to allege the necessary factual details concerning the alleged price premium they paid. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/bN09QI from Leagle.com. STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY: Smith Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hayden Smith and James D. Meadows, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY, LLC, STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY INVESTMENT FUND, LLC, STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY INVESTMENT FUND MANAGER, LLC, and RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DOWNTOWN SPORTING CLUB, Case No. 3:20-cv-00023 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover for servers and bartenders unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege they were paid a tipped hourly rate lower than the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants improperly paid this lower tipped hourly rate to servers and bartenders by impermissibly allowing non-tipped employees to participate in a tip pooling arrangement and by requiring these employees to spend more than 20% of each shift performing non-tip-producing work tasks at the lower tipped hourly rate. The Plaintiffs and other servers and bartenders are required to participate in a tip pool, in which their tips were shared with other employees, who do not receive tips directly from, or interact with, customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a server and as a bartender at Downtown Sporting Club. The Defendants own and operate Downtown Sporting Club, a cafe, bar, and restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com TAILORED BRANDS: Continues to Defend Suit vs Twin Hill ------------------------------------------------------- Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that Twin Hill, a company's subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit initiated by two American Airlines employees. On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company's Twin Hill subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648). The complaint alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, and medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines, Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs filed a Seconded Amended Complaint on October 4, 2018 on behalf of 39 named plaintiffs, adding PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy Air Inc. as defendants, adding new factual allegations and adding a new claim of fraud against American. The Second Amended Complaint included plaintiffs from the Onody (Case No. 1:18-cv-02303) and Joy (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808) matters we reported in prior filings. As a result, on October 16, 2018, the judge dismissed the separate Onody and Joy matters. The company timely answered the Second Amended Complaint and the matter will proceed in due course. The company believes that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. Tailored Brands said. "We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the United States and Canada. It operates through two segments, Retail and Corporate Apparel. The company was formerly known as The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored Brands, Inc. in February 2016. Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is based in Houston, Texas. UNITED NATURAL: Resolution Reached in North County Store Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the Company reached an agreed resolution in the class action suit entitled, North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc. In November 2018, a putative nationwide class action was filed in Rhode Island state court, which the Company removed to U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc., plaintiff asserts that the Company made false representations about the nature of fuel surcharges charged to customers and asserts claims for alleged violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the Company's fuel surcharge practices. On March 5, 2019, the Company answered the complaint denying the allegations. At a court-ordered mediation on October 15, 2019, the Company reached an agreed resolution, which was immaterial in amount, to avoid costs and uncertainty of litigation. The potential settlement must go through the Court approval and notice process, which will take several months. United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food products in the United States and Canada. The company operates through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Sues for Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------- Shinequa Griffy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. N19C-12-223 (Del. Sup., December 26, 2019), seeks declaratory relief for breach of contract for unlawful methodology in calculating statutory interests where such statutory interest is owed. USAA allegedly only brings the accrual of such interest to an end by paying both the principal amount owed in personal insurance protection benefits and the required statutory interest leaving the required statutory interest remaining unpaid, thus interest continues to accrue. USAA is an underwriter of automobile insurance including first-party medical benefits for persons injured while driving or occupying motor vehicles. Griffy is a policyholder under a Delaware automobile insurance policy issued by USAA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Spadaro, Esq. JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC 54 Liborio Lane Smyrna, DE 19977 Tel: (302) 235-7745 VERU INC: Appeal Period in Schartz Class Suit Already Lapsed ------------------------------------------------------------ Veru Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in Glotzer v. The Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488, did not file to appeal this decision during the time period permitted for appeal. The two purported derivative and class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Glotzer v. The Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488, were resolved in the Company's favor during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019. On July 10, 2019, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, dismissed the Amended Consolidated Complaint, and entered final judgment in favor of all defendants. The plaintiffs did not file to appeal this decision during the time period permitted for appeal. Veru Inc. operates as an oncology and urology biopharmaceutical company. The company operates through two segments, Commercial, and Research and Development. The company was formerly known as The Female Health Company and changed its name to Veru Inc. in July 2017. Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida. WANDA SPORTS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Wanda Sports. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies 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. Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG) Investors Affected : Wanda Sports' securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with Wanda Sports' July 26, 2019 initial public offering. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Wanda Sports Group Company Limited. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the lack of major sporting events for its Digital, Production, Sports Solutions ("DPSS") and Spectator Sports segments for its second quarter of 2019, ending before the initial public offering, would negatively impact revenue for the second quarter of 2019; (2) Wanda Sports had suffered a year-over-year decrease in revenue in its second quarter ended June 30, 2019 and would for its fiscal year 2019, primarily related to lower reimbursement revenues accounted for in its DPSS segment and lack of Spectator Sport segment offsets; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's 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/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=4973&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] WAWA INC: Fails to Guard Card Info, Sanders Data Breach Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Sanders and Patricia Sanders, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00029-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 9, 2020), accuses the Defendant of failing to protect the personal and confidential information of millions of its customers, including credit card and debit card numbers, expiration dates, and cardholder names. On December 19, 2019, Wawa revealed that it had discovered malicious software on Wawa payment processing servers. According to Wawa, "this malware affected customer payment card information used at potentially all Wawa locations beginning at different points in time after March 4, 2019 and until it was contained" on December 12, 2019. The Plaintiffs contend that they and Class Members have been injured and as a direct and proximate result of Wawa's wrongful disclosure of their Payment Card Information. Although Wawa believes "this malware no longer poses a risk to customers using payment cards at Wawa," the Plaintiffs contend they and Class Members are subject to identity fraud and identity theft because of their compromised Payment Card Information wrongfully disclosed in the Wawa Data Breach. Wawa had obligations, arising from promises made to its customers like the Plaintiffs and other Class Members, and based on industry standards, to keep the Payment Card Information confidential and to protect it from unauthorized disclosures, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs paid for one or more purchases at a Wawa store and/or gas pump with a payment card. Wawa owns and operates over 850 convenience stores and gas stations in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com jshah@sfmslaw.com aberin@sfmslaw.com –and– Richard L. Coffman, Esq. THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM Edison Plaza 350 Pine Street, Suite 700 Beaumont, TX 77701 Phone: (409) 833-7700 Facsimile: (866) 835-8250 Email: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com - and - Mitchell A. Toups, Esq. MITCHELL A. TOUPS, LTD. 2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400 Beaumont, TX 77702 Phone: (409) 838-0101 Facsimile: (409) 838-6780 Email: matoups@wgttlaw.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com WORD ENTERPRISES: Bid to Strike Improper Notices in McFarlin Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHAD McFARLIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. THE WORD ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-12536 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Improper Notices, filed on Nov. 20, 2019. The instant case involves a chain of three Hungry Howie's franchises located in Haslett, Perry, and St. Johns, Michigan. McFarlin filed a complaint against the Defendants on July 6, 2016. He alleged that the Defendants paid him below the Federal and Michigan minimum wages during his time as a delivery driver for Hungry Howie's pizza. He brought the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Michigan Minimum Wage Law, and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act to recover unpaid wages owed to him and similarly situated Hungry Howie's delivery drivers employed by the Defendants. The Defendants filed an answer on Aug. 31, 2016, denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. The Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint on Sept. 19, 2017. He alleged that throughout his time as a delivery driver at the Perry franchise, the Defendants paid him and similarly situated drivers the exact Michigan minimum wage. He also purported that the Defendants did not adequately reimburse him and other drivers for vehicle expenses incurred while delivering pizzas. Therefore, according to him, the Defendants actually paid him and the similarly situated drivers below the federal and Michigan minimum wages. The Defendants continued to deny these allegations. The Parties participated in a full-day, private mediation on Aug. 15, 2019 before the Hon. James Rashid. They subsequently filed a Joint Status Report on Sept. 19, 2019 explaining that they reached a settlement in principle, subject to the Court's approval. The Joint Status Report also included dates for the Parties to meet in order to move forward with their settlement. The Court met with the Parties on Sept. 23, 2019 to discuss the status of their settlement agreement as well as the dates in the Joint Status Report. On Nov. 14, 2019, the Court conducted a telephonic conference with the Parties to provide an updated status. It ordered the Parties to meet with each other on Nov. 18, 2019 to resolve the disagreement as to the specific language and mechanics of the release, as well as any other remaining disputes in the language for the Final Settlement Agreement. The Defendants filed a Notice Regarding Status Conference on Nov. 18, 2019, providing an updated status on the cases' settlement agreement. Specifically, the Defendants expressed their concern that the Court was previously misled as to when the class list was due. Further, the Notice denoted the outstanding dispute concerning the language of the scope of the release. They also indicated, though, that they were hopeful that this issue was behind the Parties and that they could still meet their deadlines for both the Final Settlement Agreement and the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of FLSA Collective and Class Action Settlement. They also filed a Supplement to Notice Regarding Status Conference later that day. In the Notice, they objected to the Plaintiff's request to have a court reporter present during the conference on the final settlement language. The Court advised the Parties soon after that they were to meet and confer in the presence of the court reporter. The Plaintiff now seeks to strike the Defendants' Notice Regarding Status Conference and Supplement to Notice Regarding Status Conference from the record. He argues that Defense Counsel Patrick Lannen made "several unsupported accusations" and "unprofessional accusations" in these allegedly improper Notices. He further claims that these Notices serve no other purpose other than distracting the Court from the remaining issues in this matter and clouding the record with improper filings. Therefore, the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order striking the Notices from the record pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Judge Drain denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Improper Notices. He found that Rule 12(f) does not apply to a notice because it is not a "pleading" under Rule 7(a); it therefore provides no mechanism for the Court to strike Defendants' Notices in the instant matter. Other courts within the Sixth Circuit have recognized a district court's limited authority to strike filings under Rule 12(f). The Plaintiff should have, instead, challenged the Notices' admissibility by filing a notice of objection to it. The Judge holds that an Order striking non-pleadings, such as the Defendants' Notice, is not a proper usage of Rule 12(f). A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/aX1vvd from Leagle.com. Chad McFarlin, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus & Potashnick & David M. Blanchard -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com -- Blanchard & Walker, PLLC. Kevin Dittrich, The Word Enterprises, LLC, The Word Enterprises Haslett, LLC, The Word Enterprises Lansing, LLC, The Word Enterprises Owosso, LLC, The Word Enterprises Perry, LLC, The Word Enterprises St. Johns, LLC & Dittrich Investments II, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Theuer -- jstheuer@loomislaw.com -- Loomis, Ewert. Magna Services Group, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Theuer, Loomis, Ewert & Patrick C. Lannen -- plannen@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett Cooney. YUNJI INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Yunji Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares 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. Yunji Inc. (YJ) Investors Affected : on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Yunji American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 2019 initial public offering. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Yunji Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was shifting certain of its sales to its marketplace platform; (2) this supply chain restructuring was likely to disrupt Yunji's relationships with suppliers; (3) this supply chain restructuring was likely to have an adverse impact on the Company's financial results; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/yunji-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4973&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] ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 14, 2019, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On September 9, 2019, the district court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 8, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same claims. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against the claims. Zuora said, "Given the procedural posture and the nature of this lawsuit, including that the proceedings are in the early stages, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter." Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management platform. The company provides software that enables companies across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or transform to a subscription business model. Architected specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models, the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo, California. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***