/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200121.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 15
Headlines
450 NORTH RIVER: Underpays Servers, Arriaga Suit Alleges
A&D INTERESTS: Kibodeaux Sues for Underpaying Dancers Under FLSA
ABB INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Kimbriel PII Class Suit
ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Miller Suit Against Safeway Inc. Continues
ALLEGIANCE HOSPITAL: Mazanti Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLERGAN INC: Jane Doe 1 Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
ALLERGAN USA: Tauben Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Mayer Class Action
AZZ INC: Atayi Putative Class Suit Dismissed
AZZ INC: Continues to Defend Atayi Class Action
BANSHAN GARDEN: Underpays Assistants, Castillo Suit Alleges
BEST BUY: Calcano Wants Gift Cards in Braille
BOLT ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lindenbaum Suit Claims
BRISTOW GROUP: Kokareva Class Action Underway
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Kraft Foods Global Antitrust Suit Ongoing
CALLFIRE INC: Faces Itayim Suit in Central District of California
CANOPY GROWTH: Bosco Sues over 14% Drop in Share Price
CAPCO ACQUISITIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rodriguez Claims
CARMAX INC: Wage & Hour Class Suits Continue in California
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Class Certified in Harwood Suit
CHRISTUS HEALTH: Brown et al. Sue over Debt Collection Practices
CINTAS CORP: Faces ERISA-Related Class Action in Ohio
CINTAS CORP: Faces Stock Inflation-Related Class Suit
CINTAS CORP: Faces Suit over Retirement Plan Investment
COMMTOW LLC: Improperly Charged Fees on Towed Vehicles, Suit Says
CONAGRA BRANDS: Approval of Briseno Case Settlement under Appeal
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Suits over Employee Seating
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Wage and Hour Class Suits Ongoing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnson Chen Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Related Class in Utah and Arizona Ongoing
D&W FINE PACK: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Devinney Suit over Dental Insurance
DELTA DENTAL: Stephens Alleges Dental Insurance Conspiracy
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Files Opinion on Approval of GSE Bonds Deal
DISH NETWORK: Underpays Service Specialists, Chavez Suit Claims
EDEN ISLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & AMWA, Skender Says
EL PUEBLO RESTAURANTE: Faces Merito Suit Over Underpaid Wages
ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Underpays Process Engineers, Broussard Says
EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Underpays Phlebotomists, Cobb Alleges
FIRST SOLAR: Agrees to Pay $350MM to Resolve Smilovits Suit
FORD MOTOR: Ordndorff Sues Over Defect in Automatic Transmissions
FRONTIER INC: Failed to Prevent Sexual Assault, Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Alloway Sues over Defective 6L50 Transmission
GOLD MEDAL BAKERY: Prince Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
GREEN CASTLE: Underpays Construction Workers, Morel et al. Allege
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Bouas Sues over Defective Brake System
HEXO CORP: Kim Sues Over Decline in Integrated Offering Price
INTEGRITY SERVICE: Court Certifies FLSA Class of Janitors
JUICE PLUS: Lunsford Customer Suit Removed to C.D. California
JUUL LABS: Jefferson County Suit Moved to N.D. California
KAISER FOUNDATION: Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Smith Denied
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend May Class Suit in California
LTD COMMODITIES: Court Dismisses Diaz Suit Over ADA Violations
MADISON HAIR: Underpays Colorist Assistants, Chipoco Suit Says
MASTERCORP INC: Removes Aguirre-Valdivia Suit to S.D. Cal.
MCCARTHY SEDALIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Coffi Suit Claims
MDL 2244: Lyon v. DePuy Orthopaedics Moved to N.D. Texas
MDL 2627: Moore v. Lumber Liquidators Transferred to E.D. Virginia
MDL 2666: Williams v. 3M, et al., Moved to District of Minnesota
MDL 2672: Bowers "Clean Diesel" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MDL 2738: Parsons Talc-Based Injury Suit Goes to New Jersey
MDL 2741: 3 Roundup Injury Suits Moved to N.D. California
MDL 2800: 4 Equifax Security Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ga.
MDL 2804: 32 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2814: Grago v. Ford Transferred to Central Dist. of California
MDL 2873: Court Denies Bid to Move Middlesex Water Suit to D.S.C.
MDL 2875: 4 Valsartan Injury Suits Moved to New Jersey
MDL 2919: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 10 CP4 Fuel Pump Suits
MDL 2920: Court Denies Centralization Bid of 3 Data Security Suits
MDL 2921: 4 Breast Implant Injury Suits Moved to New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: Avila Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sennhenn Sues Over Debt Collection Letter
NATIVE ROOTS: Faces Katt Suit in Colorado Alleging ADA Violations
NFI INDISTRIES: Meegan Sues over Biometric Data Collections
NIBCO INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Defective PEX Plumbing System
PARSLEY ENERGY: Jagged Peak Energy Merger-Related Suits Ongoing
PAX ASSIST INC: Underpays Wheelchair Agents, Rohoman Alleges
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Parsons Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
PFIZER INC: Zantac Contains High Levels of NDMA, Viola Claims
PHILADELPHIA URBAN: Underpays Juvenile Advocates, Bradley Says
POWER SOLUTIONS: Bid to Dismiss Treadwell Class Action Denied
PRICESMART INC: PERA Files Consolidated Class Action Complaint
PROSHARES TRUST II: Consolidated NY Class Action Dismissed
RAC ACCEPTANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez et al. Say
RED WHITE: Unwanted Marketing Practices Violates TCPA, York Says
RITE AID: Josten and Stafford Suits Consolidated
SALT CREEK MIDSTREAM: Underpays Coating Inspectors, Bock Suit Says
SUPREME HOME: Faces Dizon Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Removes Bolanos Suit to C.D. California
THREE GROUP: Underpays Entertainers, Jane Doe Suit Alleges
TRANS UNION: Gil Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
TRANS WORLD: Discovery in Spack Suit Still Ongoing
TRANS WORLD: Suit over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships Ongoing
UNITED PARCEL: Sims Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
US FOODS: Faces Morris Suit Alleging ERISA and COBRA Violations
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Warren Police Appeals Stay to Pa. Super. Court
WALGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger-Related Suit Still Ongoing
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Against Walgreen Co.
WALMART INC: Maynez Consumer Class Suit Moved to C.D. California
ZILLOW INC: Brizer Sues over Deceptive Real Estate Sale Practices
*********
450 NORTH RIVER: Underpays Servers, Arriaga Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
GIANNI ARRIAGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE LLC; RJ RIVER LLC;
KLIMA LLC; RJ 210 LLC; 23RD MANAGEMENT LLC; ROMAN K.JONES;
ARISTIDIS NANOS; MARK LEHMKUHL; and LEE LYON, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-25174 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Arriaga was employed by the Defendants as server.
450 North River Drive LLC is a domestic limited liability
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida. The
Company is engaged in the restaurant business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
A&D INTERESTS: Kibodeaux Sues for Underpaying Dancers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Kibodeaux aka Illusion, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. A&D INTERESTS, INC. D/B/A
HEARTBREAKERS GENTLEMAN'S CLUB; WHITEY DOE, an individual, Case No.
3:20-cv-00008 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 14, 2020), seeks damages resulting
from the Defendants' practice of evading the mandatory minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips.
The Plaintiff alleges that she has been denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify her and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA.
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. As a result of the Defendants' violations, the Plaintiff
and the FLSA Class Members seek to recover double damages for
failure to pay minimum wage, overtime liquidated damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in
November 2018 until December 2019.
The Defendants own and operate a strip club named HEARTBREAKERS
GENTLEMAN'S CLUB.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.comd
- and -
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
ABB INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Kimbriel PII Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rickey Kimbriel and Paula Kimbriel filed an appeal from
a court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Rickey Kimbriel, et
al. v. ABB, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00215-BO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at
Raleigh.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge
Terrence W. Boyle dismissed the case.
Rickey Kimbriel has been a machine operator at Defendant Baldor
since 2015. Baldor is a subsidiary of Defendant ABB, an industrial
technology company incorporated in Delaware with its principal
place of business in Cary, North Carolina. Rickey and his wife,
Paula Kimbriel, have participated in ABB's health benefits plan
since Rickey joined the company. When joining the Plan, Ricky and
Paula provided sensitive personal data, including full legal names,
addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers, which were
stored in the Plan's database along with other information, such as
their plan member ID, and were accessible through certain ABB
employee email accounts. ABB also had Rickey's checking account
information for purposes of direct deposit.
On Aug. 25, 2017, certain ABB employees' emails were hacked through
a phishing scheme, resulting in the compromise of personally
identifiable information ("PII") associated with the Plan. On
Sept. 7, 2017, ABB sent out a formal notice informing affected
employees of the hack, stating that Rickey and his dependent's
sensitive PII associated with the plan, specifically names,
addresses, plan member IDs, birth dates, and social security
numbers, may have been exposed. ABB represented it would pay for
identity monitoring services and encouraged affected employees to
take additional cautionary steps, including placing a fraud alert
with the Federal Trade Commission and a security freeze on their
credit files. The PII of the Plan's 17,996 participants was
compromised by the breach.
In response to the security breach, Rickey Kimbriel stopped making
401(k) contributions, resulting in additional taxes that would have
otherwise been deferred. On Feb. 13, 2019, a credit-monitoring
service notified Paula Kimbriel of five unauthorized credit
inquiries with banking institutions in four different states.
Plaintiffs Rickey and Paula Kimbriel commenced the putative class
action on behalf of all the nearly 18,000 victims of the ABB
security breach. They asserted seven claims for relief. They
allege that the Defendants' data security practices and disclosures
to employees after the breach violated the North Carolina Unfair &
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs allege the Defendants
breached a fiduciary duty by not properly safeguarding the
information. They further allege additional claims under
negligence, negligence per se, bailment, breach of contract, and
breach of implied contract.
The appellate case is captioned as Rickey Kimbriel, et al. v. ABB,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-2243, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that response
brief was due on January 15, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RICKEY KIMBRIEL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and PAULA KIMBRIEL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP
100 Europa Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Telephone: (919) 942-5200
E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH AND JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
Defendants-Appellees ABB INC. and BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY, now
known as ABB Motors and Mechanical, Inc., are represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Lenor Cathleen Marquis Segal, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
4131 Parklake Avenue
P. O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636-0000
Telephone: 919-573-1292
E-mail: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
lenor.marquissegal@elliswinters.com
- and -
Scottie Lee, Esq.
Curtis James Shipley, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P. O. Box 2752
Greensboro, NC 27402
Telephone: 336-217-4193
E-mail: scottie.lee@elliswinters.com
curtis.shipley@elliswinters.com
- and -
Jeffrey Mark Young, Esq.
ABB INC.
940 Main Campus Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Telephone: 919-856-2514
ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity
Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.).
On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against us and certain of our officers on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between June
29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.
On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.
The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).
On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which supersedes the
initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between
October 7, 2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and
certain of its current officers and one former executive violated
the federal securities laws by making false or misleading
statements and/or omitting to disclose material adverse facts that
(i) concealed known trends negatively impacting sales of the
company's products and (ii) overstated the company's ability to
achieve profitable sales growth.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intend
to vigorously defend against the claims.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based
on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint
but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on
five challenged statements to proceed to discovery.
Acuity Brands said, "Estimating an amount or range of possible
losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently
difficult, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate
claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of the
proceedings where key factual and legal issues have not been
resolved. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the
ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible
losses or a range of possible losses resulting from the matters
described above. We are insured, in excess of a self-retention, for
Directors and Officers liability."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Miller Suit Against Safeway Inc. Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that Safeway Inc.
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Miller v.
Safeway.
On May 24, 2019, the Company completed a cash tender offer and
early redemption of Safeway Inc.'s notes with a par value of $34.1
million and a book value of $33.3 million for $32.6 million, plus
accrued and unpaid interest of $0.7 million.
On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Miller
v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA.
The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the
Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA. The Company has
answered the Complaint and is vigorously defending the matter.
The Company believes that the case is without merit; however, at
this early stage in the proceedings, the Company continues to
assess the probability of the outcome or the range of reasonably
possible loss, if any.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.
ALLEGIANCE HOSPITAL: Mazanti Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Mazanti and Ronnie Walker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROCK BORDELON; ALLEGIANCE HOSPITAL OF
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, LLC, d/b/a NorthMetro Medical Center; T. JASON
REED; and FREEDOM BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, LLC,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00049-BSM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendant's
commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay the
Plaintiffs the lawful overtime premium compensation for the hours
in excess of forty hours in a single week that they were/are made
to work.
The Plaintiffs say they worked more than 40 per week for the
Defendants; however, they were and are not paid 1.5 times their
regular rate of pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 in each
workweek. As a result of the Defendants' policies and practices, in
one or more weeks during the Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendant
failed to pay each the Plaintiff for overtime hours worked at the
rates required by the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a nurse and as a
maintenance/janitorial staff.
Defendant Rock Bordelon is an individual and owner of Allegiance
Hospital of North Little Rock, LLC, d/b/a NorthMetro Medical
Center, which operated medical facilities in Jacksonville,
Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chris W. Burks, Esq.
Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
WH LAW, PLLC
1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 891-6000
Email: brandon@whlawoffices.com
chris@whlawoffices.com
ALLERGAN INC: Jane Doe 1 Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JANE DOE 1, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN
INC.; ALLERGAN USA INC.; AND ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-09151,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on December 19, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-21632 to the proceeding.
Allergan, Inc. offers medical devices and over-the-counter products
for ophthalmic, neurological, medical aesthetics, medical
dermatology, breast aesthetics, obesity intervention, and
urological diseases. Allergan serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
Steven Lance Wittels, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. WITTELS, P.C.
18 Half Mile Road
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 319-9945
Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert J. Mcguirl, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. MCGUIRL, LLC
295 Spring Valley Road
Park Ridge, NJ 07656
Telephone: (201) 391-8200
Facsimile: (201) 391-8660
E-mail: robert.mcguirl@rjmlaw.org
ALLERGAN USA: Tauben Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled LANA TAUBEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGAN USA INC.;
ALLERGAN PLC; and ALLERGAN INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02257, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on December 19, 2019. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-21599 to the proceeding. The Case
is assigned to the Judge Brian R Martinotti, and referred to
Magistrate Joseph A Dickson.
Allergan, Inc. offers medical devices and over-the-counter products
for ophthalmic, neurological, medical aesthetics, medical
dermatology, breast aesthetics, obesity intervention, and
urological diseases. Allergan serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luke A Baumstark, Esq.
THE BAUMSTARK FIRM, LLC
815 Geyer Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 492-6290
- and -
Courtney M Stout, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
- and -
Mandy M Shell, Esq.
SHELL LAW & TAX
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 399-5030
Facsimile: (816) 205-8420
1656 Washington, Suite 140
- and -
Matthew L Dameron, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Mayer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Apogee Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Murray Mayer v.
Apogee Enterprises, Inc., et al.
On November 5, 2018, Murray Mayer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class
action lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota.
On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed as lead plaintiffs the
City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters’ Retirement Plan and
the City of Cape Coral Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Plan.
On April 26, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that, during the purported class
period of May 1, 2017 to April 10, 2019, the Company and the named
executive officers made materially false and/or misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's acquisition of EFCO
Corporation on June 12, 2017, and about the Company's Architectural
Glass business segment in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, attorney's fees and costs.
Apogee said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Apogee Enterprises, Inc. designs and develops glass and metal
products and services in the United States, Canada, and Brazil. The
company operates in four segments: Architectural Framing Systems,
Architectural Glass, Architectural Services, and Large-Scale
Optical Technologies (LSO). The company was founded in 1949 and is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
AZZ INC: Atayi Putative Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
AZZ Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 9, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended November 30, 2019, that the court in Omid Atayi v. AZZ Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00928-A had entered a Final Judgment
dismissing the case without prejudice.
On November 4, 2019, Omid Atayi, acting on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between July 3, 2018 and October 8, 2019 (the
"Class Period"), filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the
Company and two of its executive officers, Thomas E. Ferguson and
Paul W. Fehlman.
On December 2, 2019, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, citing Plaintiff's failure to plead a viable claim for
relief.
On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of the Complaint.
On that same date, the Court entered a Final Judgment dismissing
the case without prejudice.
AZZ Inc. provides galvanizing and metal coating services, welding
solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered
services to the power generation, transmission, distribution,
refining, and industrial markets. The company operates through two
segments, Energy Segment and Metal Coatings. AZZ Inc. was founded
in 1956 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.
AZZ INC: Continues to Defend Atayi Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
AZZ Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 23, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended August 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Omid Atayi. The case is captioned as,
Omid Atayi v. AZZ Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00928-A.
On November 4, 2019, Omid Atayi, acting on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between July 3, 2018 and October 8, 2019 (the
"Class Period"), filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the
Company and two of its executive officers, Thomas E. Ferguson and
Paul W. Fehlman.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that throughout the
Class Period, the Company failed to disclose (1) that the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting were not effective; (2)
that the Company improperly implemented ASC 606 which resulted in
improper revenue reconciliations; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
or lacked a reasonable basis.
The plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages,
interests, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company denies the allegations and believes it has strong
defenses to vigorously contest all of the allegations.
AZZ said, "The Company cannot predict the outcome of this action
nor when it will be resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in
this matter, the Company could be liable for damages, which
potentially could be material and adversely affect its financial
condition or results of operations."
AZZ Inc. manufactures specialty electrical equipment and components
for the global power generation, power transmission, and
distribution markets. The Company also provides hot dip galvanizing
services to the steel fabrication industry across the United
States. The company is based in Fort Worth, Texas.
BANSHAN GARDEN: Underpays Assistants, Castillo Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANSHAN GARDEN INC (d/b/a BAN SHAN GARDEN
INC.); CHIU CHUN CHANG; and KE WEI SHI, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06920 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Castillo was employed by the Defendants as
assistant.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
604 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BEST BUY: Calcano Wants Gift Cards in Braille
---------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-11467-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to sell store gift
cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its store gift cards, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with
its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Best Buy Co., Inc. retails consumer electronics, home office
products, entertainment software, appliances, and related services
through its retail stores, as well as its web site. The Company
also retails pre-recorded home entertainment products through
retail stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, |Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: NYJG@aol.com
BOLT ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lindenbaum Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA LINDENBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOLT ENERGY LLC; and JOHN DOE
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02863 (N.D. Ohio, Dec.
11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.
Bolt Energy LLC is involved in the exploration, development,
production and acquisition of natural gas and petroleum interests
in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada and Wyoming and North Dakota in
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam T. Savett, Esq.
SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
2764 Carole Lane
Allentown PA 18104
Telephone: (610) 621-4550
Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (312) 483-1032
E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
BRISTOW GROUP: Kokareva Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------
Bristow Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 27, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled,
Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509.
Two purported class action complaints, Kokareva v. Bristow Group
Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509 and Lilienfield v. Bristow Group Inc.,
Case No. 4:19-cv-1064, were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on February 14, 2019 and March 21,
2019, respectively.
The complaints, which also name Jonathan E. Baliff and L. Don
Miller as defendants, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising out of
the Company's disclosures and alleged failure to make timely
disclosure of inadequate monitoring control processes related to
non-financial covenants within certain of its secured financing and
lease agreements.
On May 17, 2019, the Southern District of Texas Court appointed BRS
Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff and consolidated both actions
under Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509.
When the Company filed the Chapter 11 Cases on May 11, 2019, the
litigation against the Company was automatically stayed. When the
Company emerged from bankruptcy, all the claims against the Company
were released, but the case is still proceeding against the
individual defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on November 4,
2019, and defendants had until January 3, 2020 to file a response.
Bristow said, "The defendants believe that the claims are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against them."
Bristow Group Inc. provides industrial aviation services to the
offshore energy companies in Europe Caspian, Africa, the Americas,
and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly known as Offshore
Logistics Inc. and changed its name to Bristow Group Inc. in
February 2006. Bristow Group Inc. was founded in 1955 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. On May 11, 2019, Bristow Group
Inc. along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Texas.
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Kraft Foods Global Antitrust Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kraft Foods
Global, Inc. et al v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al, No.
1:11-cv-08808 (DP).
On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States
shell egg industry.
The cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in three
groups of cases: the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the
"Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class
Cases."
The Company settled all of the Direct Purchaser Putative Class
Action cases and the Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action
cases, and all Non-Class cases except for the claims of certain
plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising from
the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs).
In addition, the Company settled all claims brought by one of these
plaintiffs, Conopco, Inc., and the Court entered a final judgment
dismissing Conopco's claims against the Company on November 21,
2018.
On October 24, 2019, the Company entered into a confidential
settlement agreement with The Kellogg Company dismissing all claims
against the Company for an amount that does not have a material
impact on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.
On November 11, 2019, a stipulation for dismissal was filed with
the court, but the court has not yet entered a judgment on the
filing.
The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General
Mills, Inc., and Nestle USA, Inc. ("Egg Products Plaintiffs").
The Egg Products Plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive
relief under the Sherman Act and are attacking certain features of
the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company
and many other egg producers.
On July 2, 2019 the Egg Products Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand, and on September 13, 2019 the case was remanded to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al,
No. 1:11-cv-08808 (DP), where it was initially filed, for trial.
The Illinois court has not issued a case management order or any
other directive.
The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining case as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes
are meritorious and provable.
Cal-Maine said, "While management believes that the likelihood of a
material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation
has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and
rulings described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of
a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust
litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to
estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company
because of this remaining case. Adjustments, if any, which might
result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have
not been reflected in the financial statements."
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The
Company operates through the segment of production, grading,
packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company
offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The
company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.
CALLFIRE INC: Faces Itayim Suit in Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Callfire, Inc. The
case is captioned as Mariela Itayim, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Callfire, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:20-mc-00001-VAP-SS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 2,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips.
CallFire is a cloud telephony services provider headquartered in
Santa Monica, California, known locally as Silicon Beach. CallFire
develops web-based VoIP products and services as a
business-to-business service for small and medium-sized
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
CANOPY GROWTH: Bosco Sues over 14% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BOSCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION; MARK ZEKULIN;
BRUCE LINTON; MIKE LEE; and TIM SAUNDERS, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-11341 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2019) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class who purchased or otherwise
acquired Canopy securities between September 8, 2017 and November
13, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false, and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Canopy had exaggerated
or overestimated the potential market for its products in Canadian
retail stores; (ii) as a result, Canopy had failed to properly
account for inventory and demand for its products, leading to
inventory write-offs and restructuring charges; (iii) all of the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on the Company's financial results; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On November 14, 2019, Canopy announced its financial results for
the second quarter of fiscal year 2020, which ended on September
30, 2019 (the "2Q20 Press Release"). Among other results, the 2Q20
Press Release reported revenue that fell below the lowest analyst
estimate and an EBITDA loss of C$155.7 million, which one analyst
described as "astounding." The 2Q20 Press Release further advised
investors that it was unlikely to meet its previous revenue
guidance of C$250 million by the fiscal fourth quarter. As
explained by Canopy's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Mark Zekulin
("Zekulin"), "provinces have reduced purchases to lower inventory
levels, retail store openings have fallen short of expectations,
and Cannabis 2.0 products are yet to come to market." The 2Q20
Press Release further advised that, "[a]s part of a
management-initiated portfolio review, the Company has taken a
restructuring charge of $32.7 million for returns, return
provisions, and pricing allowances primarily related to its softgel
& oil portfolio"; "recorded an inventory charge of $15.9 million to
align the portfolio with the new strategy"; and that "[t]he Q2 2020
gross margin impact of the portfolio restructuring costs is $40.4
million."
On this news, Canopy's stock price fell $2.66 per share, or 14.38%,
to close at $15.84 per share on November 14, 2019.
Canopy Growth Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a producer
of medical marijuana. The Company's group of brands represents
distinct voices and market positions designed to appeal to an array
of customers, doctors and strategic industry partners. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
CAPCO ACQUISITIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rodriguez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPCO ACQUISITIONS, LLC d/b/a MALL OF
GEORGIA CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02375-WWB)
(M.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.
Capco Acquisitions, LLC d/b/a Mall of Georgia Chrysler Dodge Jeep,
is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and
businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
CARMAX INC: Wage & Hour Class Suits Continue in California
----------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend wage-and-hour class action lawsuits in California.
CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and
non-exempt employees in California.
The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.
On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.
On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory
relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties,
interest, cost and attorneys' fees.
On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.
On November 21, 2018, Derek Mcelhannon et al v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast,
Inc., a putative class action, was filed in Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda. On February 1, 2019, the Mcelhannon
lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division. The lawsuit was remanded
back to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on June
4, 2019. The Mcelhannon lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, statutory and/or civil penalties, interest, cost and
attorneys' fees.
CarMax said, "Based upon our evaluation of information currently
available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing
proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either
individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Class Certified in Harwood Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH HARWOOD AND ZANE
VANSELOW, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY ENABLED
SERVICES, LLC, fka PST SERVICES, INC., MILWAUKEE RADIOLOGISTS,
LTD., S.C., AND MIDWEST AREA PHYSICIANS, LLC, the Defendants, and
ACUITY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Intervening Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-CV-01941-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Court entered an order on
Jan. 7, 2019:
1. provisionally certifying a Settlement Class for purposes of
settlement purposes:
"any patient or person authorized by the patient who paid a
fee for the patient's healthcare billing records in excess
of that permitted by Wisconsin law and who is identified in
the Attorney Billing Records Request Data attached to the
Settlement Agreement." Excluded from the Settlement Class
are (i) Defendants, any predecessor, subsidiary, sister and/
or merged companies, and all of the present or past
directors, officers, principals, shareholders and/or agents
of the Defendants; (ii) Any and all Federal, State, County
and/or Local Governments, including their departments,
agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups,
councils and/or any other subdivision, and any claim that
such governmental entities may have, directly or indirectly;
(iii) Any currently-sitting Wisconsin state court Judge or
Justice, or any federal court Judge currently or previously
sitting in Wisconsin, and the current spouse and all other
persons within the third degree of consanguinity to such
judge/justice; and (iv) Any law firm of record in these
proceedings, including any attorney of record in these
proceedings.
2. granting Plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily approve
Settlement Agreement;
3. appointing Elizabeth Harwood and Zane Vanselow as Class
Representatives and Welcenbach Law Offices, S.C., Legg
Law Firm, LLP, and Jones and Hill, LLC as Class Counsel.
4. appointing American Legal Claim Services, LLC as Settlement
Administrator, which shall fulfill the functions, duties,
and responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator; and
5. approving form, substance and requirements of the Class
Notice
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on May 20, 2020 at
11:15 a.m. to finally determine whether the prerequisites for class
certification and treatment are met; to determine whether the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should
be approved by the Court; to determine whether to designate
Plaintiffs as the representatives of the Settlement Class; to
determine whether to designate Class Counsel as counsel for the
Settlement Class; to determine whether to grant final approval to
the Settlement; to consider the application for attorneys' fees and
expenses of Class Counsel; to determine whether the Final Approval
Order and Judgment should be entered; and to rule on any other
matters that the Court may deem appropriate. At the Final Approval
Hearing, the Court may enter the Final Approval Order and Judgment
in accordance with the Settlement Agreement that will adjudicate
the rights of Settlement Class Members, says the Court.
Change Healthcare was founded in 1990. The Company's line of
business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related
auditing services. Midwest Area Physicians, LLC is an
anesthesiology in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[CC]
CHRISTUS HEALTH: Brown et al. Sue over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BROWN, and KIMBERLY BLANTON-WERNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTUS
HEALTH d/b/a TLRA, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-603 (E.D. Tex., Dec.
17, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
Christus Health d/b/a TLRA is a Texas corporation engaged in the
business of collecting debts, using mails and telephone. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samantha J. Orlowski, Esq.
Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
HALVORSEN KLOTE
680 Craig Road, Suite 104
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 451-1314
Facsimile: (314) 787-4323
E-mail: sam@hklawstl.com
joel@hklawstl.com
CINTAS CORP: Faces ERISA-Related Class Action in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against a class action suit alleging violations of The
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The Company, the Board of Directors, CEO and the Investment Policy
Committee are defendants in a purported class action, filed on
December 13, 2019, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio alleging violations of The Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The lawsuit asserts that the defendants improperly managed the
costs of the employee retirement plan, breached their fiduciary
duties in failing to investigate and select lower cost alternative
funds, and failed to monitor and control the employee retirement
plan's recordkeeping costs.
The defendants deny liability.
Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services. The company is based
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CINTAS CORP: Faces Stock Inflation-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against a purported class action suit related to the
company's stock inflation.
The Company and three executive officers are defendants in a
purported class action, filed on December 12, 2019, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging
violations of federal securities laws.
The lawsuit asserts that the defendants made material misstatements
regarding the Company's margins, earnings guidance and regulatory
compliance that caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices between March 2017 and November 2019.
The defendants deny liability.
Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services. The company is based
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CINTAS CORP: Faces Suit over Retirement Plan Investment
-------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND HAWKINS, and ROBINS LUNG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CINTAS CORPORATION; BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF CINTAS CORPORATION; SCOTT D. FARMER; INVESTMENT
POLICY COMMMITEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01062-TSB (S.D. Ohio., Dec. 13, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the Class
Period, December 13, 2013 to the present, the Defendants, as
"fiduciaries" of the Cintas Partners' Plan ("Plan"), as that term
is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan,
to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by,
inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the
Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each
investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2)
maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of
identical or similar investment options with lower costs and better
performance histories.
To make matters worse, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest
cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and
failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or
separate accounts as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan,
despite their lower fees.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. Their actions were
contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and
its participants millions of dollars.
Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Connick, Esq.
301 Main Street, Suite H
Zanesville, OH 43701
E-mail: mconnick@MJConnick.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
COMMTOW LLC: Improperly Charged Fees on Towed Vehicles, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEK PFEIFFER; and DESERY MARTIN CHASE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMTOW, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-008124-CI (Fla. 6th Cir., Pinellas Cty.,
Dec. 10, 2019) seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages,
plus pre-judgment interest, attorney's fees and litigation costs,
due to the Defendant's improper rounding up of the mileage fee it
charges to persons retrieving non-consensually towed vehicles.
CommTow, LLC provides towing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
Courtney A. Umberger, Esq.
Iasia B. Ward, Esq.
FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC
105 S. Edison Avenue
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 463-0123
Facsimile: (813) 670-1288
E-mail: Felipe@FulgecioLaw.com
CU@FulgencioLaw.com
IWard@FulgencioLaw.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Approval of Briseno Case Settlement under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that a single objecting
class member has taken an appeal from the court's decision
approving the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Briseno
v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
The company is a party to a number of putative class action
lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's
product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc. in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as
100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain
genetically modified plants and organisms.
In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class
certification in January 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings. On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in this matter.
In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, a single objecting class
member has appealed the court's decision approving the settlement
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled,
Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.
The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices.
These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al., pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.
Conagra said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results
of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter
to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations, or business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.
The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material
misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an
unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial
prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle, thus causing the
Company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the
Company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for
the second quarter of fiscal year 2019.
The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In addition, on May 9, 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative
action on behalf of the Company against the Company's directors
captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois asserting harm to the Company due to
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection
with the Pinnacle acquisition.
On July 9, 2019 and September 20, 2019, the Company received two
separate demands from stockholders under Delaware law to inspect
the Company's books and records related to the Board of Directors'
review of the Pinnacle business, acquisition, and the Company's
public statements related to them.
On July 22, 2019 and August 6, 2019, respectively, two additional
shareholder derivative lawsuits captioned Opperman v. Connolly, et
al. and Dahl v. Connolly, et al. were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting similar facts
and claims as the Klein v. Arora, et al. matter.
On October 21, 2019, the Company received an additional demand from
a stockholder under Delaware law to appoint a special committee to
investigate the conduct of certain officers and directors in
connection with the Pinnacle acquisition and the Company's public
statements.
Conagra said, "We have put the Company's insurance carriers on
notice of each of these securities and shareholder matters. While
we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other
legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that the parties
in Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp., have reached an agreement on a
class settlement.
In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action,
alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and
rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438 Santa Clara
Superior Court filed Jan. 3, 2019).
The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
In October the parties reached an agreement on a class settlement,
which is subject to court approval.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Suits over Employee Seating
------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that the parties
in the class action suits related to seating claims have reached an
agreement to settle their respective matters.
The parties reached an agreement to settle the seating claims on a
class basis, which is subject to court approval.
The Company is a defendant in a class action alleging violation of
California Wage Order 7-2001 for failing to provide seating to
member service assistants who act as greeters in the Company's
California warehouses. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.
(Case No. 5:13-CV-03598, N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2013).
The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint. The action has been stayed pending review by the Ninth
Circuit of the order certifying a class.
In January 2019, an employee brought similar claims for relief
concerning Costco employees engaged at member services counters in
California. Rodriguez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
RG19001310, Alameda Superior Court filed Jan. 4, 2019).
The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.
In December 2018, a depot employee raised similar claims, alleging
that depot employees in California did not receive suitable seating
or appropriate workplace temperature conditions. Lane v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (Dec. 6, 2018 Notice to California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency). The Company filed an answer denying
the material allegations of the complaint.
In October the parties reached an agreement to settle the seating
claims on a class basis, which is subject to court approval.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Wage and Hour Class Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that the company
continues to defend multiple wage and hour class action suits in
California.
In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay
wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for
unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California
Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Nevarez,
et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454
C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 25, 2019). The Company filed an answer denying
the material allegations of the complaint.
In May 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to
terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
2:19-cv-01340 E.D. Cal. filed May 28, 2019). Relief is sought under
the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.
In June 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices. Martinez v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624 N.D. Cal. filed June 11,
2019). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations
of the complaint.
In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. Rough v. Costco (Case No. FCS053454, Sonoma County Superior
Court, filed August 23, 2019). Relief is sought under the
California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.
In September 2019, an employee re-filed a class action against the
Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay
wages, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage
statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to
pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Mosley v.
Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-07935, C.D. Cal. filed
Sept. 12, 2019). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnson Chen Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that the company
is awaiting the plaintiffs' filing of an amended complaint in the
consolidated Johnson and Chen class actions.
The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class
actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018).
The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.
They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and
costs and attorneys' fees.
On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the
actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April
16.
On November 26, the court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to
file a further amended complaint within 90 days.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Related Class in Utah and Arizona Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended November 24, 2019, that the company
continues to defend opioid-related class action suits in Utah and
Arizona.
In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various
defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes,
third-party payors, and others concerning the impacts of opioid
abuse. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804)
(N.D. Ohio).
Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions
filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon,
Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio, and class
actions filed in thirty-eight states on behalf of infants born with
opioid-related medical conditions.
In 2019 similar actions were commenced against the Company in state
courts in Utah and Arizona. Claims against the Company in state
courts in New Jersey and Oklahoma have been dismissed. The Company
is defending all of these matters.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
D&W FINE PACK: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. D&W FINE PACK, LLC, Case No. 2020CH00514 (Ill. Cir.,
Cook Cty., Jan. 14, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the
proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.
Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff contends.
Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues
not to: properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used,
as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and
other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required
by BIPA; receive a written release from Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or
otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information to a third party as required by BIPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at D&W Fine Pack in
Illinois.
D&W Fine Pack, LLC is an Illinois corporation with places of
business in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: 314-833-4825
Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Devinney Suit over Dental Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jacob Devinney brought a class action on behalf of dental
providers, seeking to enjoin an ongoing conspiracy between and
among the individual plans and their association, the Delta Dental
Plans Association ("DDPA"), to allocate markets in violation of the
prohibitions of the Sherman Act and California law.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
engaged in a market allocation scheme that represents a contract,
combination, and conspiracy in restraint of trade within the
meaning of the Sherman Act. The Defendants have agreed to divide
and allocate the geographic markets for the provision of dental
insurance into a series of exclusive territories for each of the 39
independent Delta Dental companies.
By so doing, the Defendants have also conspired to suppress
competition and reduce compensation to dental Providers in
violation of the Sherman Act. Due to the lack of competition which
results from the Defendants' illegal conduct, dental providers are
undercompensated for those services.
Delta Dental Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life, health, dental, and disability insurance
services. Delta Dental Insurance Company serves customers in the
United States.
The case is captioned, DR. JACOB DEVINNEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL
PLAN ASSOCIATION; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DELTAUSA; DELTA
DENTAL OF ARIZONA; DELTA DENTAL OF ARKANSAS; DELTA DENTAL OF
CALIFORNIA; DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE;
DELTA DENTAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE;
DELTA DENTAL OF IDAHO; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL OF
INDIANA; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS; DELTA DENTAL
OF KENTUCKY; MAINE DENTAL SERVICE CORP.; DELTA DENTAL OF
MASSACHUSETTS; DELTA DENTAL OF MICHIGAN; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA;
DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL OF EBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW
MEXICO; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA;
NORTHEAST DELTA DENTAL (OF MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT); DELTA
DENTAL OF OHIO; DELTA DENTAL OF OKLAHOMA; DELTA DENTAL OF OREGON;
DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO; DELTA
DENTAL OF RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL
OF TENNESSEE; DELTA DENTAL OF VERMONT, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF
VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL OF WEST
VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN; and DELTA DENTAL OF WYOMING,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-08258 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2019).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Birkhaeuser, Esq.
BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 125
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Telephone: 925-945-0200
E-mail: dbirkhaeuser@bramsonplutzik.com
- and -
Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
Shinae Kim-Helms, Esq.
Nathan M. Cihlar, Esq.
Joshua Q. Callister, Esq.
STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 764-8700
Facsimile: (703) 764-8704
E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com
skimhelms@straus-boies.com
ncihlar@straus-boies.com
jcallister@straus-boies.com
DELTA DENTAL: Stephens Alleges Dental Insurance Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------
William G. Stephens brought a class action on behalf of dental
providers to enjoin an ongoing conspiracy between and among the
individual plans and their association, the Delta Dental Plans
Association ("DDPA"), to allocate markets in violation of the
prohibitions of the Sherman Act and California law.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
engaged in a market allocation scheme that represents a contract,
combination, and conspiracy in restraint of trade within the
meaning of the Sherman Act. The Defendants have agreed to divide
and allocate the geographic markets for the provision of dental
insurance into a series of exclusive territories for each of the 39
independent Delta Dental companies.
By so doing, the Defendants have also conspired to suppress
competition and reduce compensation to dental Providers in
violation of the Sherman Act. Due to the lack of competition which
results from the Defendants' illegal conduct, dental providers are
undercompensated for those services.
Delta Dental Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life, health, dental, and disability insurance
services. Delta Dental Insurance Company serves customers in the
United States.
The case is captioned, WILLIAM G. STEPHENS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL
PLANS ASSOCIATION; DeltaUSA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
ARIZONA DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
ARKANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA; DELTA DENTAL OF
COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
IDAHO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
INDIANA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS, INC.;
DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY, INC.; MAINE DENTAL SERVICE CORP.; DENTAL
SERVICE OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MICHIGAN,
INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI; DELTA
DENTAL OF NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW MEXICO, INC.;
DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA;
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OHIO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OKLAHOMA;
OREGON DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL
OF PUERTO RICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF
SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF TENNESSEE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
VERMONT, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF
WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL
OF WISCONSIN; and DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WYOMING, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-10576 9(C.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2019)[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward H. Takashima, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 752-2400
Facsimile: (310) 752-2490
E-mail: etakashima@bsfllp.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Files Opinion on Approval of GSE Bonds Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 19-cv-01704 (JSR)
(S.D.N.Y.) is a putative class action alleging conspiracy among
several large banks to fix the secondary market of GSE bonds.
The Plaintiffs include the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System; Electrical Workers Pension System Local 103, I.B.E.W. &
Local 103, I.B.E.W. Health Benefit Plan, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated; Sheet Metal Workers Local 19
Pension Fund; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore; International
Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local
No. 14 Pension and Health and Welfare Funds; Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Police Retirement System of St. Louis & PUERTO RICO
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND JUDICIARY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
ADMINISTRATION; Joseph Torsella, in His Official Capacity as
Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated; Police Retirement System of St. Louis,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
The Defendants include Bank of America, N.A. & Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Barclays Bank PLC & Barclays Capital
Inc.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.;
Credit Suisse AG & Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Deutsche
Bank AG & Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; FTN Financial Securities
Corp. & First Tennessee Bank, N.A.; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC;
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. & J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; UBS
Securities LLC; BofA Securities, Inc.; Jefferies Group LLC; Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Nomura Securities
International, Inc.; TD Securities (USA) LLC; Cantor Fitzgerald &
Co., Defendant; SG Americas Securities, LLC; Deerfield Beach
Municipal Firefighters Pension Trust Fund, ADR Provider; and
Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund, ADR Provider.
Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Opinion and Order dated November 7,
2019, elaborating the reasons for the Court's October 2019
preliminary approval of the plaintiffs' separate settlement
agreements with (1) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., and (2) First
Tennessee Bank, N.A. and FTN Financial Securities Corp. (FTN).
The Court noted that it considered new amendments to Rule 23 and
the nine factors set out in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495
F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974) in its analysis, noting where they
overlap.
In the present case, the Court finds that plaintiffs' interests are
aligned with other class members' interests because they suffered
the same injuries - monetary loss resulting from GSE bond
transactions with settling defendants. Co-Lead Counsel have
demonstrated that they are qualified, experienced, and able to
conduct the litigation, as evidenced in their interactions with the
Court as well as with a mediator.
The Court also notes that here, the parties engaged in mediation
and the mediator's declaration confirms that the settlement
agreements were "a product of extensive and informed negotiations
conducted at arm's length" by "sophisticated and capable counsel."
The Court further notes that the Grinnell factor on the
consideration of "complexity, expense and likely duration of the
litigation" weighs in favor of preliminary approval. Two more
related Grinnell factors, "the risks of establishing liability" and
"the risks of establishing damages" also counsel in favor of
preliminarily approving the settlement agreements, the Court
continues.
And a final Grinnell factor, which requires a court to assess "the
risks of maintaining a class through the trial" also supports
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, the Court opines.
Maintenance of the class would not guaranteed if the settling
defendants went to trial.
The Court also finds that the proposed Plan of Distribution meets
the standard of Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii). The Plan of Distribution
would allocate the fund based on a calculation that accounts for
the risk level, maturity, and volume of bonds purchased by each
claimant.
The total settlement fund is $14.5 million for FTN and $15 million
for Deutsche Bank. And the settlement proposes to apply an award
of attorneys' fees not to exceed 26% of the Settlement Fund. The
Court finds that this does not weigh against preliminary approval
of the Settlements. However, the Court will not approve the
payment of any of the costs of mediation the parties engaged in.
The Court however points out that the seventh Grinnel factor --
defendants' ability to withstand a greater judgment -- disfavors
approval of both settlement agreements, particulary the FTC
Settlement Agreement. Both Deutsche Bank and FTN are large
corporations, and there is no evidence on the record that they
could not withstand a greater judgment. Only Deutsche Bank has
offered cooperation that the Court may take account of at this
stage in the approval process. This factor, standing alone though,
is not enough to require disapproval of the FTN settlement at this
stage.
The Court adds that two additional Grinnell factors weigh against
preliminary approval of the FTN Settlement Agreement. Courts often
consider Grinnell factor 8, "the range of reasonableness of the
settlement in light of the best possible recovery," and Grinnell
factor 9, "the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a
possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of
litigation," together.
Although most of the Rule 23(e)(2) and Grinnell factors weigh in
favor of preliminary approval of both settlements, the Court has
some concerns about the adequacy of plaintiffs' settlement with
FTN. I n light of the automatic treble damages and attorneys' fees
plaintiffs would be entitled to upon proving FTN's liability, the
$14.5 million settlement offer from FTN appears quite modest.
Further, the Court will not credit FTN with cooperation it has not
yet offered. However, given that the remaining factors weigh in
favor of preliminary approval, and that FTN's cooperation may yet
reveal itself to be valuable for purposes of final settlement
approval, the Court finds that it will likely be able to approve
the settlement proposals under Rule 23(e)(2).
The Court notes that it will likely be able to certify the
settlement class under the numerosity, commonality, typicality and
adequacy of representation standards of Rule 23(a). The case also
likely meets the predominance test and superiority requirements of
Rule 23(b).
The Court ultimately finds that it will likely be able to approve
the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2) and certify the class for purposes
of judgment on the proposal. For these reasons, the Court
preliminarily approved the Deutsche and FTN Settlement Agreements
on October 29, 2019 and hereby reaffirms that determination.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s November 7, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhgzotve from
Leagle.com
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Plaintiff,
represented by Vincent Briganti -vbriganti@lowey.com - Lowey
Dannenberg P.C., Amanda F. Lawrence - alawrence@scott-scott.com -
Scott&Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Christian Levis -
clevis@lowey.com - Lowey Dannenberg P.C., George A. Zelcs -
gzelcs@koreintillery.com - Korein Tillery, LLC, Joseph Peter
Guglielmo - jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - Scott + Scott, L.L.P.,
Justin W. Batten , Scott and Scott, 230 Park Ave Fl 17, New York,
NY 10169-1820, Attorneys at Law LLP, Kristen M. Anderson -
KANDERSON@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP,
Margaret Ciavarella MacLean -mmaclean@lowey.com - Lowey Dannenberg
P.C., Michelle Elizabeth Conston - MCONSTON@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -
Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Peter Anthony Barile, III -
PBARILE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott & Scott LLP, Randall P. Ewing, Jr.
- rewing@koreintillery.com - Korein Tillery, LLC, Roland Raymond
St. Louis, III -rstlouis@lowey.com - Lowey Dannenberg P.C., Thomas
Kay Boardman - tboardman@scott-scott.com - Scott + Scott, L.L.P.,
Walter W. Noss - WNOSS@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott+ Scott Attorneys at
Law LLP & Christopher M. Burke - CBURKE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.
Bank of America, N.A. & Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,
Defendants, represented by John E. Schmidtlein -
jschmidtlein@wc.com - Williams & Connelly L.L.P., pro hac vice,
Beth A. Stewart - bstewart@wc.com - Beth Stewart Esq, Jesse T.
Smallwood - jsmallwood@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP, Jonathan
Bradley Pitt - jpitt@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP & Lauren Anna
Howard - lhoward@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP.
Barclays Bank PLC & Barclays Capital Inc., Defendants, represented
by Lawrence Edward Buterman - lawrence.buterman@lw.com - Latham &
Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova - lilia.vazova@lw.com -
Latham & Watkins LLP, Richard David Owens - richard.owens@lw.com -
Latham & Watkins LLP, Adam Brian Shamah - adam.shamah@lw.com -
Latham & Watkins, LLP & Gregory Stephen Mortenson -
gregory.mortenson@lw.com - Latham & Watkins LLP.
DISH NETWORK: Underpays Service Specialists, Chavez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISH NETWORK LLC; ECHOSTAR
CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00067350-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Dec. 18,
2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff Chavez was employed by the Defendants as service
specialist.
Dish Network L.L.C. provides broadcasting services. The Company
offers international channels, HD, and DVR technology. Dish Network
serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
EDEN ISLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & AMWA, Skender Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stetson Skender, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. EDEN ISLE CORPORATION and GARY REDD, Case No.
4:20-cv-00054-BRW (E.D. Ark., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff frequently worked more
hours than he was scheduled, and these hours often went unrecorded
and uncompensated. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in
a week, and regularly failed to receive an overtime premium for
hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendant knew or should have
known that its actions violated the requirements of the FLSA and
the AMWA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
maintenance supervisor from July 2016 to December 2019.
The Defendant a domestic, nonprofit Corporation and its principal
business is maintaining the grounds and facilities of Eden
Isle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
EL PUEBLO RESTAURANTE: Faces Merito Suit Over Underpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Merito, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FRANCIA NEGRETE d/b/a EL PUEBLO RESTAURANTE and FRANCIA
KARINA NEGRETE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-S (N.D. Tex., Jan. 14,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by underpaying the Plaintiff and other employees.
The Plaintiff says she worked an average of 40 to 45 hours per week
for the Defendants, but was only paid an average of $4.00/hr for
each hour worked. She contends that the payment of $4.00/hr is in
violation of the FLSA as said payment did not meet the applicable
federal minimum wage required for said period of time.
Ms. Merito also alleges that the Defendants failed to accurately
maintain records of tips, as required by both regulation and
statute, to ensure that during all wage periods sufficient tips
were received by the Defendants' employees (including the
Plaintiff) such that their wages were brought above minimum wage
for each and every workweek.
Plaintiff Maria Merito worked for the Defendants as a restaurant
worker from April 15, 2018, to May 15, 2019.
The Defendants are an unincorporated entity and is doing business
as "El Pueblo Restaurante."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 234
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: 214-420-3366
Fax: 214-206-9802
Email: tom@tru-legal.com
ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Underpays Process Engineers, Broussard Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID JOHN BROUSSARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE POWERTRAIN USA,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00841 (W.D. Va., Dec. 12, 2019) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Broussard was employed by the Defendant as process
engineer.
Eldor Automotive Powertrain USA, LLC provides auto parts. The
Company offers CO2 reduction, electrification, urban e-mobility,
alternative energy sources, and energy production services for
automobiles. Eldor Automotive Powertrain USA serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq.
N. Winston West, IV, Esq.
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC
119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
Roanoke, VA 24011
Telephone: (540) 283-0802
E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com
leigh@strelkalaw.com
winston@strelkalaw.com
brittany@strelkalaw.com
monica@strelkalaw.com
EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Underpays Phlebotomists, Cobb Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY COBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02766 (D. Kan., Dec. 18, 2019) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Cobb was employed by the Defendant as mobile
phlebotomist.
Examination Management Services Inc. offers risk management
services. The Company provides alcohol and drug screening for
employment purposes, clinical trials, paramedical exams, and claim
investigations. Examination Management Services serves clients in
insurance, healthcare, investments and research sector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc N. Middleton Kan, Esq.
Megan Lowe Stiles, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
8350 N. St. Clair Ave. Ste 225
Kansas City, MO 64151
Telephone: (816) 581-4040
Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
E-mail: m.middleton@cornerstonefirm.com
m.stiles@cornerstonefirm.com
FIRST SOLAR: Agrees to Pay $350MM to Resolve Smilovits Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 6, 2020, that the
Company has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle a
class action litigation filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc.,
et al, No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC.
This lawsuit was filed in 2012.
First Solar has agreed to pay a total of $350 million to settle the
claims brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's shares between April 30, 2008 and February
28, 2012. The parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith to
execute definitive stipulations of settlement and related documents
to be filed with the court, which will not contain any admission of
liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties and
will provide that upon final approval of the settlement, it will be
dismissed with prejudice, with mutual releases by all parties. The
settlement is subject to approval by the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona.
"We are confident that resolving this matter is the right business
decision for First Solar and its shareholders," said Mark Widmar,
Chief Executive Officer of First Solar. "While we are confident in
the facts and the merits of our position, we believe it is prudent
to end this protracted and uncertain class action litigation
process, and focus on driving the business forward. We remain in a
strong financial position, are pleased with our progress with
Series 6 and our contracted customer pipeline, and are focused on
executing our global strategy and serving our customers."
Given the uncertainties of trial, the Company had not been in a
position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss or adverse
effect on its financial condition or to estimate the range of
potential loss in connection with the Class Action. As a result of
the entry into the MOU, the Company expects that the above
referenced $350 million will be incorporated into the results of
operations and financial condition of the Company for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
The previously disclosed lawsuit titled Maverick Fund, L.D.C. v.
First Solar, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01156-ROS, filed in Arizona
District Court by putative stockholders that opted out of the Class
Action, remains pending. The previously disclosed derivative
lawsuit titled Bargar, et al. v. Ahearn, et al., No. CV2013-009938,
filed in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, also
remains pending.
First Solar, Inc. is a global provider of comprehensive
photovoltaic ("PV") solar systems which use its advanced module and
system technology. The Company's integrated power plant solutions
deliver an economically attractive alternative to fossil-fuel
electricity generation today. From raw material sourcing through
end-of-life module recycling, First Solar's renewable energy
systems protect and enhance the environment. The company is based
in Tempe, Arizona.
FORD MOTOR: Ordndorff Sues Over Defect in Automatic Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor M. Ordndorff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00247-MSG (E.D.
Pa., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought on behalf of those who purchased or
leased Model Year 2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles that contain a
transmission defect.
Mr. Ordndorff contends 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.
The defect in Ford's 10R80 transmissions is a potentially
life-threatening safety issue and Ford has refused to recall or
replace the defective Transmissions, Mr. Ordndorff contends. He
adds that Ford refuses to replace or repair the Transmissions and
merely states that the abrupt and harsh shifting is normal.
Had he 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, he and the Class Members would not have
purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for
them, Mr. Ordndorff asserts. As a result of their reliance on the
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.
Plaintiff Victor M. Ordndorff leased a 2018 Ford Super Cab.
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:
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Arthur M. Stock, 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
arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com
lisa@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.
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
- 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
FRONTIER INC: Failed to Prevent Sexual Assault, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
LENA RAMSAY, and JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03544 (D. Colo., Dec. 16, 2019) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to have, and follow policies and
procedures to prevent, report, and respond to sexual assault of
its passengers on its flights.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
implement and enforce appropriate policies and procedures to
prevent, or properly respond to, sexual assaults that occur on its
flights. The Defendant also failed to report in-flight sexual
assaults to the proper authorities, or to any authorities, and
failed to cooperate with authorities in the reporting and
investigation process into in-flight sexual assaults.
As a result of the Defendant's failures, the Plaintiffs were
sexually assaulted by their fellow passengers while they were on
the Defendant's flights, and are at an ongoing risk for future
sexual assaults.
Frontier Airlines, Inc. provides airline services. The Company
offers services which includes corporate programs, groups and
charters, frontier cards, best care club, cargo, and travel agents.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
Rachel E. Green, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
akmartin@lchb.com
ashaver@lchb.com
rgreen@lchb.com
- and -
Tyler H. Fox, Esq.
TYLER FOX, ESQ.
689 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
Telephone: (866) 296-1965
E-mail: tylerfox@verizon.net
- and -
Pamela Maass, Esq.
MAASS LAW
26 W. Dry Creek Cir., Suite 600
Littleton, CO 80120
Telephone: (720) 899-3541
E-mail: pam@lifelegacyfirm.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Alloway Sues over Defective 6L50 Transmission
-------------------------------------------------------------
CALI ALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-13671-SJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., Dec. 12, 2019) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and a class of
current and former owners and lessees of model year 2015-2017 GMC
Canyon and Chevrolet Colorado vehicles (the "Class Vehicles"),
alleging that the Class Vehicles were designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, sold and warranted by General Motors LLC
("Defendant" or "GM") and equipped with defective 6L50
transmissions.
According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles were sold with a
defective 6L50 Transmission that, slips, bucks, kicks, jerks and
harshly engages; has premature internal wear, sudden acceleration,
delay in downshifts, delayed acceleration and difficulty stopping
the vehicle, and eventually suffers a catastrophic failure
requiring replacement of the transmission (the "Transmission
Defect").
This defect, which manifests itself within the limited warranty
period or shortly after the limited warranty period expires, can
cause unsafe conditions in the Class Vehicles, including vehicles
suddenly lurching forward, sudden loss of forward propulsion, and
significant delays in acceleration. These conditions present a
safety hazard because they severely affect the driver's ability to
control the vehicle's speed, acceleration, and deceleration. Even
more troubling, the Transmission Defect can cause the vehicle to
fail to downshift and decelerate when the brakes are depressed.
This crucial defect has put the Plaintiff, as well as countless
members of the Class, at risk of great bodily harm.
General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Marc L. Newman, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
555 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0581
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
- and -
Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@Capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@Capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@Capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@Capstonelawyers.com
GOLD MEDAL BAKERY: Prince Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Prince, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Gold Medal Bakery, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-40007 (D. Mass., Jan.
14, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime pay, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant requires its employees to
perform compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled
shifts, when they are not clocked into its timekeeping system, and
does not compensate them for this work. The Plaintiff contends that
this policy results in the Employees not being paid for all hours
worked, including overtime.
The Plaintiff says he typically worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek during his employment. As a result of the Defendant's
compensation policy, the Plaintiff and all of the other Employees
are deprived of pay for compensable time worked, including
overtime, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Mark Prince worked for GMB in its wrapping department at
the Factory from August 2006 to December 2019.
Gold Medal Bakery, Inc. is a commercial bakery and delivery service
based in Fall River, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
STEFFANS LEGAL LLC
7 North Street, Suite 307
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Phone (413) 418-4176
Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com
GREEN CASTLE: Underpays Construction Workers, Morel et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIAN CRUZ MOREL; JEISSON PENA; JOSUE PENA; FRANCISCO PENA; JAVIER
MOLINA; and DIEGO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GREEN CASTLE A MGMT CORP.; S C S CONSULTANT CORP.; JAMES CAREY; and
JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11307 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
11, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.
Green Castle A Mgmt Corp. provides real estate development
consulting services and property management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Bouas Sues over Defective Brake System
-------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BOUAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-1367 (S.D. Il., Dec. 17, 2019) is an
action arising from Harley-Davidson's sale of tens of thousands of
motorcycles with a hidden and dangerous defect in their antilock
braking systems ("ABS").
These subject motorcycles all have a defective wiring harness that
will uniformly fail under normal operation and far short of their
intended lifespan, causing the ABS to cease functioning without
warning or any obvious sign to the rider.
Harley-Davidson knew of this specific wiring harness defect since
at least 2008. Despite knowing of the wiring harness defect since
at least 2008, despite knowing that the operator of a motorcycle
with a defective ABS wiring harness would have no immediate signal
that his motorcycle's ABS had failed, and despite knowing that a
rider following ABS braking instructions on a motorcycle lacking it
could apply the brakes in such a way as to cause serious injury or
death, Harley-Davidson has taken no action to disclose the
existence of this material safety defect nor its consequences to
owners and operators of these motorcycles, or to repair, replace,
repurchase, or upgrade affected motorcycles.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group LLC produces and sells
motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight
motorcycles, and other accessories. Harley-Davidson operates its
business worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan Myers Arvola, Esq.
Evan D. Buxner, Esq.
THE GORI LAW FIRM, P.C.
156 North Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 659-9833
Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
E-mail: marvola@gorilaw.com
evan@gorilaw.com
HEXO CORP: Kim Sues Over Decline in Integrated Offering Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HEXO CORP., SEBASTIEN ST-LOUIS, ADAM MIRON, MICHAEL
MUNZAR, JASON EWART, VINCENT CHIARA, NATHALIE BOURQUE, ED CHAPLIN,
CIBC WORLD MARKETS INC., BMO NESBITT BURNS INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO.
INC., ALTACORP CAPITAL INC., BEACON SECURITIES LIMITED, BRYAN,
GARNIER & CO LTD, CORMARK SECURITIES INC., EIGHT CAPITAL, GMP
SECURITIES L.P., LAURENTIAN BANK SECURITIES INC., PI FINANCIAL
CORP., and ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 650307/2020 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought on behalf of all
persons, who purchased HEXO common stock in or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement on Form F-10 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2018, and the
Registration Statement on Form 8-A filed on January 17, 2019.
The Registration Statement created a single integrated offering
that allowed the Company to list its stock on the New York Stock
Exchange after trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The action asserts strict liability claims under the Securities Act
of 1933 against HEXO and certain officers and directors of HEXO for
the false and misleading statements contained in the Integrated
Offering.
As a result of the negligent preparation, the Registration
Statement contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such
documents, the Plaintiff alleges. The Registration Statement
repeatedly touted the Company's supply agreement with the Societe
quebecoise du cannabis in Quebec, the government agency in Quebec
responsible for cannabis distribution. The Supply Agreement called
for the Company to provide the SQDC with 20,000 kg of product.
According to the Registration Statement, the Supply Agreement
contained a "take-or-pay" provision for this 20,000 kg of product.
A "take-or-pay" clause in an agreement calls for the receiver of
the product to either accept delivery or pay a penalty for refusing
to do so. The Registration Statement contained multiple mentions of
the take-or-play clause in the Supply Agreement. Therefore, even if
the SQDC's needs fell short, the impression created by the
Registration Statement was that HEXO would be covered by this
clause.
According to the complaint, these representations were materially
false and misleading because the SQDC would not purchase 20,000 kg
from the Company and HEXO would not enforce the take-or-pay
provision in the event of the shortfall. Rather than disclose this
known adverse fact, the Registration Statement provided boilerplate
risk statements about potential contingent future issues that may
occur, says the complaint.
Concerning the take-or-pay provision of the Supply Agreement,
Defendant St-Louis disclosed that the Company chose not to demand
the SQDC pay the amount owed. Defendant St-Louis stated that he did
not think it would be a good decision in light of how long HEXO
wanted to remain partners with the SQDC, demonstrating that the
Company never intended to exercise the provision repeatedly
highlighted in the Registrations Statement.
Due to this, the Plaintiff asserts he and the Class have sustained
damages. He notes that the value of HEXO common stock has declined
substantially subsequent to and due to the Defendants' violations.
As of market close on December 3, 2019, the price of HEXO stock was
trading at just $2.15 per share, approximately 56% below the
Integrated Offering price.
Plaintiff John Kim purchased shares of HEXO common stock.
HEXO is in the business of producing, marketing, and selling
cannabis through its wholly owned subsidiary, HEXO Operations Inc.,
which is a licensed cannabis producer under Canada's Cannabis
Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. AMON
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 810-2430
Email: tamon@amonlaw.com
- and -
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
Jonathan D. Bobak, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
Email: brobbins@robbinsllp.com
soddo@robbinsllp.com
jbobak@robbinsllp.com
INTEGRITY SERVICE: Court Certifies FLSA Class of Janitors
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as James Moyer, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Integrity Service Group, LLC, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-198 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Thomas
M. Rose entered an order on Jan. 9, 2020:
1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification, and court-supervised notice to potential
opt-in Plaintiffs on behalf of:
"any Janitor currently or formerly working for Integrity
Service Group, LLC, Deanna Church, and/or Rex Church,
between the time period of June 28, 2016 and the present
who was classified as either an exempt employee or a
contractor and was not paid time-and-a-half for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek";
2. certifying Plaintiffs' proposed Fair Labor Standards Act
class and approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of FLSA
claim; and
3. directing Plaintiffs to propose a procedure whereby
notification of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim will be sent to all
potential opt-in plaintiffs.
Notice must be "timely, accurate, and informative." Hoffmann-La
Roche, 493 U.S. at 172. Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to
Join form is accurate and informative. Both the proposed Notice and
Consent to Join form advises putative collective members of the
pending litigation, describes the legal and factual bases of
Plaintiffs' claims, informs collective members of the right to opt
in and that participation in the lawsuit is voluntary, and provides
instructions on how to opt in, the Court says.[CC]
JUICE PLUS: Lunsford Customer Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Juice Plus+ Company, LLC, removed the case captioned as
CHRISTINE LUNSFORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE JUICE PLUS+ COMPANY, LLC, NATURAL ALTERNATIVES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV42051
(Filed Nov. 22, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Jan. 1, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00012-RGK-AGR to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Juice Plus made automatic renewal or
continuous service offers to customers in California without
providing the terms of such offers "in a clear and conspicuous
manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the
offer. The Plaintiff also alleges that Juice Plus charged
customers' debit or credit cards without the affirmative consent of
these customers to an agreement containing these terms and that
Juice Plus failed to provide an acknowledgement containing these
terms, the cancellation policy, and information about how to cancel
the subscription in a manner allowing the consumer to retain it.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Juice Plus failed to provide an
online method of cancellation to customers, who accepted this
automatic renewal and continuous service offers, in violation of
the California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Automatic
Renewal Law.
Juice Plus+ provides food based nutritional products. The Company
sells health and wellness products such as added nutrition juice
powder concentrates made from fruits, vegetables, berries, and
grains. Natural Alternatives is an American company based in San
Marcos, California, which manufactures nutritional supplements such
as Juice Plus.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy P. Lally, Esq.
Celia H. Spalding, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: +1 310 595 9500
Facsimile: +1 310 595 9501
E-mail: Alally@sidley.com
Cspalding@sidley.com
JUUL LABS: Jefferson County Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS INC.; ALTRIA GROUP INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES; ALTIRA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC;
and PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-00136, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on December 19, 2019. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 19-8265 to the proceeding.
JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures electronic cigarettes. The Company
offers products such as device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in
different flavors. JUUL Labs serves customers in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Roe Frazer , II, Esq.
FRAZER, PLC
30 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 450
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 647-0988
Facsimile: (866) 314-2466
E-mail: roe@frazer.law
KAISER FOUNDATION: Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Smith Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement in MONICA SMITH and ERIKA SIERRA,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00780-KSC.
(S.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit arises out of defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals'
alleged failure to properly compensate certain call center
employees. Kaiser offers call center services to patients and
insured members located in California, Georgia and Hawaii. It
employs "Telemedicine Specialists," "Customer Support Specialists,"
and "Wellness Specialists" to receive and respond to call center
calls, among other duties.
Plaintiff Monica Smith was employed as a Telemedicine Specialist at
Kaiser, while Plaintiff Erika Sierra was employed as a Customer
Support Specialist for Kaiser.
In December 2017, Smith filed a hybrid class and collective action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, asserting that Kaiser engaged in willful violations and
the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code with respect to
its policies and practices for payment of Telemedicine Specialists
and Advice Nurses. In April 2018, the case was transferred to the
Southern District of California. Thereafter, the parties reached
an agreement for conditional certification of a FLSA collective
action, which was adopted by the Court. By May 2019, an amended
complaint was filed, which adds Sierra as class representative and
adds two causes of action - Failure to Provide Rest Breaks and
Waiting Time Penalties on behalf of Customer Service Support
Specialists.
In May 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking, among other things,
(1) preliminary certification of a class for settlement purposes
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 and conditional
certification of a FLSA collective for settlement purposes under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201, (2) preliminary approval of a class settlement,
and (3) appointment of Smith and Sierra as class representatives.
The proposed Settlement Agreement requires Kaiser to pay a gross
settlement amount of $1,475,000, in addition to any employer
payroll taxes. The manner in which the gross settlement amount,
which is non-reversionary, is to be allocated is described somewhat
differently in the Motion that the parties' Settlement Agreement,
the Court notes.
Plaintiffs estimate the Net Settlement Fund will total $920,500,
however, it is not clear how this total was calculated given the
inconsistencies between the Settlement Agreement and the Motion,
the Court points out. They estimate a class size of 437 class
members, which they represent would yield an average payment of
$2,104.40 per class member. In exchange for these payments, the
Settlement Agreement provides that participating Class Members will
release certain claims.
The settlement envisions a class consisting of all current and
former employees who worked for Kaiser Foundation Hospitals at its
San Diego, California location, with the job title of Customer
Support Specialist, Wellness Specialist, or Telemedicine Specialist
between December 21, 2013 and preliminary approval.
The Court opines that for purposes of preliminary certification,
the requirement of numerosity, commonality and typicality under
Rule 23(a) have been met. On the adequacy of representation
requirement, the Court notes that it does not need to reach a
conclusion on that matter at this stage. The Court also finds that
the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b) have
been satisfied.
Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action
The Court find that in the current case, plaintiffs have not
provided adequate information to determine the size and scope of
the FLSA collective action. In addition to lacking evidentiary
substantiation, plaintiffs' definition for the collective action is
problematic for these reasons:
First, the FAC seeks recovery for a shorter time period than
collective action definition currently posited, dating back only to
December 21, 2014. The Court cannot certify a collective action
that is defined more broadly than the scope of the pleadings.
Second, the parameters for the collective action group set forth in
plaintiffs' Motion are also inconsistent with the language of the
Settlement Agreement, including specifically the release language
set forth in Section 4.2, which indicates FLSA claims would be
released for the time period December 21, 2014 through the
preliminary approval date.
Third, the Court previously conditionally certified a nationwide
collective action group of Telemedicine Specialists. Notice of
Right to Join Lawsuit was disseminated to members of this group, of
which 64 Telemedicine Specialists opted-in to this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs now seek conditional certification of a group that is
limited to San Diego based employees but do not address the fact
that 64 individuals from a nationwide group have already opted-in
to the case. The Court's concern, thus, is whether any of the 64
opt-in plaintiffs, who are now party plaintiffs, were excluded from
the newly defined collective action group and settlement, which is
limited to San Diego.
Because of these concerns, the Court cannot preliminarily certify
the collective action group.
The Court further opines that there are multiple issues that
preclude preliminary approval of the parties' settlement at this
time:
1. Inclusion of FLSA Claims: Plaintiffs seek to link settlement of
state and federal claims via a single check with disclosure
language on the reverse. Under their proposal, Rule 23 class
members would opt-in to the FLSA collective action and release all
FLSA claims, for no separate compensation, when they cash their
checks for settlement of the state law claims. This procedure and
the inclusion of FLSA claims renders this settlement improper.
If Kaiser wants a release of bona fide FLSA claims, it should have
to pay fair and reasonable consideration for that release, the
Court notes. On the other hand, if there is no bona fide dispute
over FLSA provisions, plaintiffs should dismiss the FLSA claims
without prejudice, and the parties can limit their settlement to
the Rule 23 class action claims.
2. Estimated Exposure: The motion lacks sufficient evidence or
information that would allow the Court to evaluate the
reasonableness of the settlement amount, the Court says. While
plaintiffs have explained how they calculate Kaiser's potential
exposure on the Off-the-Clock wage claims, alleged Labor Code
violations and PAGA claim, they have not provided any such
assessment of the FLSA claims. Furthermore, the information
provided as to how plaintiffs calculated Kaiser's potential
exposure on the Off-the-Clock wage claims, alleged Labor Code
violations and PAGA claim is highly generalized and where specifics
are provided, seemingly incomplete.
3. Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Administrative Expenses: There are
discrepancies between the Settlement Agreement and plaintiffs'
Motion with respect to what they propose be allocated for Costs and
Administrative Expenses.
4. Service Awards: Plaintiffs seek $7,500 as an incentive award
for named plaintiff Smith, $5,000 to opt-in plaintiff Fox, and
$2,500 to named plaintiff Sierra. These may be reasonable ratios,
but plaintiffs' counsel has provided very little detail about these
individuals' efforts in this case.
5. Proposed Notice: The notice to the class is not adequate, the
Court opines. Here, the proposed notice does not list the claims
asserted in the Amended Complaint. Nor does it acknowledge the
hybrid nature of the lawsuit. It also does not provide any
mechanism for a recipient to participate in the Rule 23 class but
not opt in to the FLSA collective action.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yeb68y58 from Leagle.com
Monica Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated individuals, Petitioner, represented by Jahan Crawford
Reza Sagafi - jahan@post.harvard.edu - Outten & Golden LLP, Jason
J. Thompson- jthompson@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac
vice, Kevin J. Stoops - kstoops@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz,
P.C., pro hac vice & Trenton R. Kashima - trk@classactionlaw.com -
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, a California corporation, Respondent,
represented by Candace Bertoldi - cbertoldi@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Pritee Kamal Thakarsey -pthakarsey@seyfarth.com -
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Candace Sheri Bertoldi , Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Christian J. Rowley – crowley@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Kerry McCoy Friedrichs -kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Pamela L. Vartabedian , Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend May Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, May v. KushCo
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES.
The case was filed April 30, 2019, before the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
This putative shareholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's securities between July 13,
2017 and April 9, 2019, inclusive.
In July 2019, purported Company shareholders filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and lead plaintiffs.
In September 2019, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint was filed in November 2019, and the defendants' responses
to the complaint are currently due in January 2020.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.
KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.
LTD COMMODITIES: Court Dismisses Diaz Suit Over ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, dismissed with prejudice the case
captioned EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. L.T.D. COMMODITIES LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19 CV 7892-LTS-OTW (S.D. N.Y.), as to the named Plaintiff and
without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs and without costs
to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action
to the Judge's calendar if the settlement is not achieved within 60
days of the date of the Order.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. If a party
wishes to reopen this matter or extend the time within which it may
be settled, the party must make a letter application before the
60-day period expires.
The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/l79cNm from Leagle.com.
Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Mizrahi -- joseph@cml.legal --
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP.
MADISON HAIR: Underpays Colorist Assistants, Chipoco Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE M. CHIPOCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADISON HAIR INC.; A & B HAIR,
INC.; and MICHELLE HONG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11446
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff Chipoco was employed by the Defendants as colorist
assistant.
Madison Hair Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in the saloon
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
Imran Ansari, Esq.
AIDALA BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
545 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 486-0011
E-mail: Is@aidalalaw.com
MASTERCORP INC: Removes Aguirre-Valdivia Suit to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ANA AGUIRRE-VALDIVIA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MASTERCORP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2019
00080820-CU-OE-CTL) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on December 18, 2019. The clerk of court for
the Southern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02424-CAB-WVG. The case is assigned to Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo and referred to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo.
MasterCorp, Inc. provides cleaning and maintenance services. The
Company offers departure cleaning, laundry management, assessment,
traffic area carpet cleaning, inventory control, and maintenance
reporting services. MasterCorp operates in the United States. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
William Benjamin DeClercq, Esq.
TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 434-6868
Facsimile: (770) 434-7376
MCCARTHY SEDALIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Coffi Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES COFFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCCARTHY SEDALIA, LLC d/b/a MCCARTHY TOYOTA
OF SEDALIA., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00991-SRB (W.D. Mo., Dec.
10, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.
Mccarthy Sedalia, LLC d/b/a Mccarthy Toyota Of Sedalia is an
automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and
businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin L. Daesch, Esq.
Jesse B. Rochman, Esq.
ONDERLAW, LLC
110 East Lockwood
St. Louis, MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 963-9000
Facsimile: (314) 963-1700
E-mail: daesch@onderlaw.com
rochman@onderlaw.com
- and
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: 305-975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
MDL 2244: Lyon v. DePuy Orthopaedics Moved to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the case styled, LYON v. DEPUY
ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-5270, from the Northern
District of California to the Northern District of Texas and, with
the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable James E.
Kinkeade for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Northern District of California action (Lyon)
moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring her action to MDL No. 2244. The DePuy
defendants oppose the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2244, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.
Transfer also is warranted for the reasons set out in the Panel's
order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that
the Northern District of Texas was an appropriate Section 1407
forum for actions sharing factual questions as to alleged injuries
from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants.
Plaintiff in Lyon claims that she suffered injuries related to the
implantation of a DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implant,
which she alleges caused high blood chromium and cobalt levels and
required revision surgery. Lyon thus falls within the MDL's
ambit.
Plaintiff argues that transfer is inappropriate because federal
jurisdiction is lacking over Lyon. The Panel consistently has held
that the pendency of jurisdictional objections does not warrant
vacatur. Plaintiff can present her motion for remand to the
transferee judge.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/UP0fNN
MDL 2627: Moore v. Lumber Liquidators Transferred to E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured
Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2627, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the case styled, MOORE v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS,
INC., N.D. Georgia, C.A. No. 1:19-3454, from the Northern District
of Georgia to the Eastern District of Virginia and, with the
consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Anthony J.
Trenga for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Northern District of Georgia action (Moore) moves
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring her action to MDL No. 2627. Defendant Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., opposes the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2627, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.
Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons discussed in the
court's prior order directing centralization. In that order, the
Panel held that the Eastern District of Virginia was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions concerning
the sale and marketing of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring by
defendant Lumber Liquidators. Plaintiffs alleged that their
laminate flooring emits illegal and unsafe levels of formaldehyde,
a known carcinogen, despite being marketed as compliant with
regulations of the California Air Resources Board and other
applicable regulations. Moore claims injuries arising from the
installation of Lumber Liquidators Chinese-manufactured laminate
flooring in plaintiff's home, which she alleges emitted excessive
levels of formaldehyde. This action clearly falls within the MDL's
ambit.
Plaintiff opposes transfer, arguing that transfer will be of little
benefit to the progress of her case and will cause her
inconvenience. These arguments do not weigh heavily against
transfer. Plaintiff was a member of the consumer class settlement
reached in the MDL, and chose to opt out. The transferee court has
retained jurisdiction over opt-out actions, and has overseen
several personal injury actions. According to defendants,
plaintiff is the second opt-out to file suit. The first opt-out
case (Bossen) was transferred by the Panel without opposition in
May 2019, and remains pending in the MDL.
Plaintiff argues, without significant discussion, that transfer
will be inconvenient for her because there are no other personal
injury cases pending in the MDL. In deciding issues of Section
1407 transfer, the Panel looks to the overall convenience of the
parties and witnesses in the litigation as a whole. The transferee
court has presided over several personal injury cases and is deeply
familiar with the contours of this litigation, which is nearing
conclusion. Plaintiff is unlikely to endure the personal
inconvenience of traveling to the transferee district, "since
Section 1407 transfer is for pretrial proceedings only, there is
usually no need for the parties and witnesses to travel to the
transferee district for depositions or otherwise."
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/aIb5jr
MDL 2666: Williams v. 3M, et al., Moved to District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR WARMING DEVICES PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2666, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the action styled, WILLIAMS v. 3M, ET AL., C.A.
No. 4:19-00617, from the Western District of Missouri to the
District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable Joan N. Ericksen for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Western District of Missouri Williams action moves
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring the action to the District of Minnesota for inclusion
in MDL No. 2666. Defendants 3M Company, Arizant Healthcare Inc.,
and Kevin Acton oppose the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that Williams involves common questions of fact with actions
transferred to MDL No. 2666, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL share
factual questions arising from allegations that post-surgery use of
a Bair Hugger forced air warming system causes serious infections
due to the introduction of contaminants into open wounds. The
Williams plaintiff does not dispute that her action implicates
those same questions.
In support of her motion to vacate, the Williams plaintiff raises
essentially three arguments:(1) her motion for remand to state
court is pending; (2) in light of the transferee judge's July 31,
2019, ruling granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, the
MDL is over, and there is no procedure in place for handling
tag-alongs filed since that ruling; and (3) even if the summary
judgment ruling is reversed, the MDL is so advanced that
plaintiff's case would not benefit from inclusion therein. These
arguments are not persuasive. First, the Panel consistently has
held that the pendency of jurisdictional objections does not
warrant vacatur. Second, the MDL is not over. The MDL plaintiffs
have appealed the summary judgment ruling. In other MDLs, such as
In re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2434) and
In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation
(No. II) (MDL No. 2243), the Panel has continued to transfer newly
filed tag-alongs during (and after) the pendency of appeals of
MDL-wide summary judgment rulings. Plaintiff's argument that there
is no formal mechanism in place for the treatment of cases that
have been filed or transferred to the MDL since the summary
judgment ruling issued is unavailing. Following transfer,
plaintiff is free to petition the transferee court to establish
such a mechanism or to seek other appropriate relief. Third, the
advanced stage of the MDL also does not warrant vacatur. If the
summary judgment is reversed, plaintiff will benefit from the
substantial discovery and other pretrial proceedings that have
taken place in the MDL, as well as the transferee judge's deep
familiarity with the litigation. Absent transfer, the parties in
Williams and the Western District of Missouri court would need to
duplicate much of what already has taken place in the MDL.
Transfer thus will conserve party and judicial resources. Although
transfer may result in some delay in the progress of Williams, the
Panel considers the convenience of the parties and witnesses as a
whole in deciding the issue of transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/d9ZgdT
MDL 2672: Bowers "Clean Diesel" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring BOWERS, ET AL. v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OFAMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-1043, from
the Eastern District of Virginia to the Northern District of
California and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the
Honorable Charles R. Breyer for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the Bowers action pending in the Eastern District of
Virginia move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2672. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. (VW) opposes the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2672, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in the
Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel
held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding
the role of VW and related entities in equipping certain 2.0- and
3.0- liter diesel engines with software allegedly designed to
engage emissions controls only when the vehicles undergo official
testing, while at other times the engines emit nitrous oxide well
in excess of legal limits. Bowers involves allegations that
defendants misrepresented the fuel economy and carbon dioxide
emissions of certain Audi gasoline-powered vehicles. The action is
without doubt factually connected to the MDL proceedings, in which
defendants state that nineteen other carbon dioxide emissions cases
are pending.
Plaintiffs oppose transfer by arguing that their action should be
remanded in light of the transferee judge's past decisions in
arguably similar cases. The Panel, however, does not have the
authority to determine the applicability of one judge's remand
ruling in one case to other arguably similar cases, and thus often
has ordered transfer over the objection that remand is required by
applicable precedent. These jurisdictional issues do not present
an impediment to transfer. Plaintiffs can present their remand
arguments to the transferee judge.
Plaintiffs also argue that transfer will slow the progress of their
action. Given that counsel for plaintiffs have brought, according
to defendants, eight similar actions that already are pending in
the MDL, transfer is also appropriate to ensure the consistent
handling of the Audi carbon dioxide cases, even if it comes with
some delay to the progress of Bowers. Moreover, transfer places
plaintiffs before Judge Breyer, who preliminarily approved a class
settlement covering Audi carbon dioxide claims in October 2019. A
final approval hearing is set for February 28, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/EJzBdy
MDL 2738: Parsons Talc-Based Injury Suit Goes to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, PARSONS, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A.
No. 7:19-00068, from the Eastern District of Kentucky to the
District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the Parsons action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Parsons to
the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
oppose the motion.
In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over their action is lacking, and that
plaintiffs' pending motion for remand to state court should be
decided before transfer. The Panel has held that such
jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to
transfer. Plaintiffs also argue that transfer will cause them
inconvenience and delay the resolution of their remand motion. But
transfer of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties
to the action might experience inconvenience or delay. Plaintiffs
can present their remand arguments to the transferee judge.
Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge
Caldwell finds that Parsons involves common questions of fact with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed
ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson &Johnson's
talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to
Shower body powder). Parsons shares multiple questions of fact
with the actions already in the MDL.
MDL 2741: 3 Roundup Injury Suits Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
2741, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three
actions to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Vince
Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The three actions are:
* District of Hawaii - PIZL v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No.
1:19-00397
* Northern District of Illinois - RAWSON v. BAYER CORPORATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-06040
* District of Oregon - VAN DER ZANDEN, ET AL. v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, INC.,C.A. No. 3:19-01382
Plaintiffs in the three actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to
the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2741.
Defendant Monsanto Company opposes the motions.
In support of his motion, plaintiff in Northern District of
Illinois Rawson argues that federal subject matter jurisdiction
over Rawson is lacking, and that his motion for remand to state
court should be decided before transfer. Such jurisdictional
issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer.
Plaintiff also argues that transfer will cause him inconvenience
and delay the resolution of his remand motion. But transfer of an
action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of
the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action
might experience inconvenience or delay. Plaintiff can present his
remand arguments to the transferee judge.
Plaintiffs in the Pizl and Van Der Zanden actions argue that
transfer is not appropriate because the MDL has reached an advanced
stage. This characterization is inaccurate. While much of the
general discovery of Monsanto has been completed, the transferee
court is now organizing the actions for completion of case-specific
discovery and disposition of case-specific dispositive and Daubert
motions on a state-by-state basis before remanding those actions to
their transferor courts. The transferee court has yet to rule on
any such motions and has not suggested remand of any action to its
transferor court. Further, while the transferee court has
conducted one bellwether trial, it has scheduled a second trial to
begin in February 2020. Actions originating from both the District
of Hawaii and the District of Oregon are pending in the MDL. Thus,
significant efficiency and convenience benefits may be achieved
through the continued transfer of tag-along actions to MDL No.
2741.
Plaintiffs in Pizl and Van Der Zanden also argue that transfer will
be inconvenient for them, as they and their fact witnesses reside
in Hawaii or Oregon. Again, while it might inconvenience some
parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to
further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a
whole. The benefits of coordinating these two actions with others
in the MDL, particularly other actions filed in the District of
Hawaii and the District of Oregon, outweigh any potential
inconvenience to plaintiffs.
Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell
finds that the three actions involve common questions of fact with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 2741, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of California was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. All of the actions share multiple factual
issues with the cases already in the MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/K6Dj5O
MDL 2800: 4 Equifax Security Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring five actions listed on Schedule A to the Northern
District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned
them to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the five actions, proceeding pro se, each move under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally
transferring their actions to MDL No. 2800. Defendant Equifax Inc.
opposes the motions to vacate.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell finds
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2800, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. The actions in MDL No. 2800 arise from a 2017
cybersecurity incident involving Equifax in which the personally
identifiable information of more than 145 million consumers
allegedly was compromised. The actions before the Panel involve
allegations, similar to those in the MDL No. 2800 actions, that
Equifax failed to adequately safeguard plaintiffs' personally
identifiable information, which was compromised during the Equifax
data breach.
Plaintiffs in all actions argue that transfer is not warranted
because Equifax has admitted liability by failing to respond to
plaintiffs' correspondence. The Panel previously rejected a
similar argument -- that transfer to MDL No. 2800 is not warranted
because common facts as to the breach will be undisputed.
Inclusion of these actions in pretrial proceedings will promote the
just and efficient conduct of these five actions, particularly as
the allegations in each are substantially similar and each
plaintiff alleges the same course of correspondence with Equifax.
Plaintiffs in four actions argue against transfer that they have
opted out of the MDL No. 2800 settlement. This argument too is
unavailing. There are other opt-out actions pending in the MDL
that share questions of fact with these actions. Transfer will
promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions remaining in
this litigation.
Plaintiffs in two actions argue that transfer will cause them
inconvenience. As the Panel has held, while it might inconvenience
some parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to
further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a
whole. The transferee judge is in the best position to structure
proceedings so as to minimize inconvenience to any individual
party.
The Eastern District of Texas Bass plaintiff argues that the Panel
has no authority over him (as he has argued in the Eastern District
of Texas -- the court where he filed his claim). Section 1407
confers on the Panel the authority to transfer the Bass action.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/YP1sA8
MDL 2804: 32 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 32
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in 32 actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL
No. 2804. Various defendants oppose the motions.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that
order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country.
Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, they
share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. The
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.
The plaintiffs opposing transfer in 31 actions argue principally
that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But
opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is
insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer orders
covering otherwise factually related cases. Several plaintiffs
also argue that including their actions in this large MDL will
cause them inconvenience and delay the progress of their actions.
Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings,
transfer is justified in order to facilitate the efficient conduct
of the litigation as a whole.
Plaintiff in the Southern District of West Virginia Tilley action,
an action for personal injuries brought by a minor who was born
addicted to opiates, opposes transfer by arguing that his action is
unique. But the Panel has transferred to the MDL several similar
actions that involve infants suffering from Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome (NAS), some of which were brought by counsel for plaintiff
in Tilley. Moreover, the Panel denied a motion to create a
separate MDL for NAS infants in December 2018 in favor of
transferring such cases to the MDL. Plaintiff has not convinced
the Judge to change this approach.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/a9cpPG
MDL 2814: Grago v. Ford Transferred to Central Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2814, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the action styled, GRAGO V. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:19-04043, from the Northern District of
California to the Central District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Andre Birotte,
Jr., for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Grago action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order conditionally transferring his action to MDL No.
2814. Defendant Ford Motor Company opposes the motion to vacate
and supports transfer.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell finds that
this action shares questions of fact with the actions transferred
to MDL No. 2814, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions in
MDL No. 2814 share factual questions arising out of allegations
that the DPS6PowerShift transmission installed in certain Ford
Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles is defective and negatively affects
the drivability, safety, and useful life of the vehicles. The
Grago action alleges defects in the DPS6 PowerShift transmission in
a 2015 Ford Focus, and plainly involves the same questions.
In opposition to transfer, plaintiff argues that his action
presents unique and individualized factual issues. He emphasizes
those portions of his complaint alleging that Ford fraudulently
concealed the vehicle's transmission repair history before he
purchased the vehicle, and that Ford wrongfully refused to buy back
the vehicle. But significant common factual issues concerning the
allegedly defective DPS6 PowerShift transmission are obvious on the
face of the complaint. As defendant points out, the allegation
that the transmission is defective is central to plaintiff's
alleged fraud and buyback claims. In any event, the presence of
additional facts and legal theories is not significant when, as
here, the actions arise from a common factual core. Grago will
require the same discovery of Ford's conduct as the actions in the
MDL; that plaintiff's claims may require additional case-specific
discovery does not bar transfer.
Plaintiff also objects to transfer on the ground that MDL No. 2814
is at a mature stage and informal coordination of any overlapping
discovery therefore is preferable to transfer. These arguments are
unconvincing. Common pretrial proceedings are ongoing. Thus,
transfer will facilitate coordinated pretrial proceedings in all
related actions, including Grago. Additionally, informal
coordination would be inefficient, given the extent of overlap in
plaintiff's action and the actions in the MDL, especially in light
of the complexity of the litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/xXvxUN
MDL 2873: Court Denies Bid to Move Middlesex Water Suit to D.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied Defendant 3M
Company's motion to transfer the action styled MIDDLESEX WATER
COMPANY v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-15366 from the
District of New Jersey to the District of South Carolina for
inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
Defendant 3M Company moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to
transfer the Middlesex action to the District of South Carolina for
inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Plaintiff Middlesex Water Company
opposes the motion.
MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to
extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local
groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Before the
Panel centralized this docket, Middlesex was noticed as a
potentially related action. The initial complaint in Middlesex
contained few mentions of AFFFs, but instead asserted claims
against 3M for the alleged contamination of plaintiff's drinking
water supplies with PFOS and/or PFOA. After the Panel centralized
MDL No. 2873, the Panel Clerk determined that Middlesex was not
appropriate for inclusion in the MDL. In the intervening months,
plaintiff amended its complaint and removed all references to
AFFFs.
In support of its motion to transfer, 3M argues that, regardless of
how plaintiff's claims are constructed, Middlesex inevitably will
present claims and defenses related to the alleged contamination of
drinking supplies caused by use of AFFFs. Specifically, 3M
provides an expert declaration by Samuel A. Flewelling, who
identifies various sources of potential AFFF contamination that may
have contributed to PFOS or PFOA contamination in plaintiff's
public drinking water supply. 3M also points to an Annual Water
Quality Report published by plaintiff in 2018 that identifies
"firefighting foams" as one of the sources of PFOA and PFOS in
drinking water. 3M argues that this evidence establishes the
discovery concerning AFFF contamination sites and issues will be
necessary in Middlesex and, therefore, that transfer to MDL No.
2873 is appropriate.
The Panel has transferred several actions in which plaintiffs
allege multiple sources of PFOS and PFOA contamination, including
from the use of AFFFs. The Panel has not, though, transferred an
action to the MDL that contains no allegations or claims relating
to AFFF use. Plaintiffs' claims in Middlesex are directed at 3M
and its manufacture, marketing, and sales of PFOS and PFOA, not its
manufacture of AFFF products. It certainly is possible that, as
pretrial proceedings progress in Middlesex, it becomes apparent
that AFFF claims and discovery in this action will be significant.
But at this stage—3M has not yet answered the complaint in
Middlesex and discovery has only just begun—any claims or
defenses based on contamination of water supplies by AFFFs remain
too speculative to warrant transfer.
In addition, transfer of Middlesex could broaden the scope of MDL
No. 2873 significantly. If potential causation or contribution
arguments are sufficient to bring an action within the ambit of MDL
No. 2873, then a large number of cases that do not assert AFFF
claims might be swept into this litigation. When the Panel
centralized this docket, it denied a motion by 3M to expand the MDL
to encompass not just cases involving AFFFs, but all cases relating
to 3M's manufacture, management, disposal, and sale of per- or
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, an umbrella term that includes
PFOS and PFOA). In doing so, the Panel observed that:
"While a non-AFFF MDL would allow for common discovery and motion
practice with respect to 3M -- the main producer of PFOA and PFOS
-- it also would include far more site-specific issues, different
modes of PFAS contamination, and different PFAS chemicals (whereas
the AFFF actions are limited to PFOA and PFOS contamination). Such
an MDL could quickly become unwieldy."
This concern has not disappeared, and the Panel has no desire to
unnecessarily complicate the transferee judge's task in efficiently
managing this litigation, which already involves a wide range of
claims and parties. Given the Panel's continued concern about the
manageability of this litigation, a party seeking transfer of an
action that does not on its face raise AFFF claims bears a
significant burden to persuade the Panel that transfer is
appropriate and will not undermine the efficient progress of the
AFFF MDL. 3M has failed to do so here.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/WSfTxR
MDL 2875: 4 Valsartan Injury Suits Moved to New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VALSARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2875, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring four
actions to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that
court, assigned them to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Judge Caldwell also ordered that MDL No. 2875 is renamed "In re:
Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability
Litigation."
The four actions are:
* Northern District of Alabama - THOMAS v. HETERO DRUGS LTD., ET
AL., C.A. No. 6:19-01290
* Eastern District of Arkansas - ESTATE OF LARRY BROCK v. TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALINDUSTRIES LTD.,ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-00538
* Eastern District of Tennessee - BRANHAM v. HETERO DRUGS,
LIMITED, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-00265
* Western District of Tennessee - BENNETT, ET AL. v. ZHEJIANG
HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-02418
Plaintiffs represented by co-lead counsel in MDL No. 2875 move
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to expand the scope of the MDL to
include additional drugs and alleged contaminants. The MDL, as
currently constructed, is limited to generic valsartan drugs that
allegedly contain carcinogenic nitrosamine impurities. The motion
requests expansion of the MDL (1) to include actions concerning all
other drugs in the Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARB)
class–namely, losartan, irbesartan, eposartan, azilsartan,
candesartan, olmesartan, and telmisartan; and (2) to encompass
claims of contamination by any potential carcinogen. Movants
accordingly request transfer of four actions involving losartan and
irbesartan to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL
No.2875, and also request inclusion of losartan and irbesartan
actions previously filed there but not yet part of the MDL. They
also request that MDL No. 2875 be recaptioned "In re ARB
Contamination Products Liability Litigation." In their reply brief,
movants alternatively propose an expansion for some subset of the
ARB drugs, principally losartan and irbesartan.
All responding defendants oppose expanding the MDL's scope to
include all drugs in the ARB class and potential carcinogens other
than nitrosamines. The ZHP defendants, joined by eight others,
also oppose expanding the MDL to include losartan and irbesartan
actions, and specifically oppose transfer of the four actions on
the motion. Seven defendants -- the Humana, Aurobindo, Torrent,
and Hetero companies -- did not take a position on the inclusion of
losartan and irbesartan actions.
Movants argue that expansion of the MDL is warranted at this time
because: (1) the FDA investigation into impurities in generic
valsartan drugs has grown to cover the entire ARB drug class, and
resulted in recalls of over 500 lots of two other ARBs -- namely,
losartan and irbesartan ; (2) the upward trend in ARB recalls has
resulted in the filing of additional actions, with more
forthcoming, eventually involving all drugs in the class; and (3)
the current and to-be-filed ARB actions present common factual
questions because (i) the same manufacturing processes that
resulted in the presence of nitrosamines in valsartan allegedly
have resulted in the presence of nitrosamines and other
contaminants in all drugs in this class; and (ii) many of the
current defendants in MDL No. 2875 -- companies involved in the
valsartan supply chain -- also manufacture or sell some or all of
the other ARB drugs (or the active ingredient in them). Plaintiffs
further argue that the MDL should include claims of contamination
by any carcinogen, not just nitrosamines, because another
carcinogen (N-Dimethylformamide) recently was detected in valsartan
drugs.
In opposition, defendants principally argue that expanding the MDL
to include all eight drugs in the ARB class is not appropriate
because the pending actions concern only valsartan, losartan and
irbesartan. In particular, they assert, without dispute from
movants, that the other five ARB s are not the subject of any
action in federal or state court, and have not been the subject of
any recalls. Defendants also assert that the recalls all have been
based on the presence of nitrosamine impurities in the recalled
drugs and, thus, movants' request to broaden the MDL to include any
alleged carcinogen is unsupported. As to an expansion of the MDL
just for the pending losartan and irbesartan actions, defendants
argue that: (1) the number of losartan and irbesartan actions is
minimal, and informal coordination of those actions is practicable;
(2) valsartan, losartan and irbesartan each are distinct drugs,
involving drug-and defendant-specific questions that will
predominate over any common issues; and (3) the addition of new
drugs to the MDL will result in unwieldy and inefficient pretrial
proceedings and increase the danger of frivolous filings.
On balance, Judge Caldwell has determined that the record warrants
expanding the scope of MDL No.2875 to include the actions involving
losartan and irbesartan, but not to include other drugs in the ARB
class. Although the record indicates that the FDA is investigating
ARB s as a class, the only pending actions arising from that
investigation involve valsartan, losartan and irbesartan .
Movants' speculation that actions involving all drugs in the ARB
class eventually will be filed is insufficient to support the
requested ARB class-wide MDL. In the absence of such actions,
their request is premature. The Judge also observes that the
claims in the pending actions concern the formation of, and risks
from, nitrosamine impurities. Thus, the Judge declines movants'
request to expand the MDL to include all potential carcinogens.
Defendants' objections to the inclusion of losartan and irbesartan
actions are unpersuasive. First, there are four actions asserting
losartan and irbesartan claims in four geographically dispersed
districts, and nine such actions pending in the transferee district
-- 13 actions in total. The parties are unlikely to be able to
effectively informally coordinate among this number of actions and
districts, especially in light of the complexity of the issues and
international scope of discovery. Second, inclusion of the
losartan and irbesartan actions in the MDL is superior to informal
coordination given that the transferee court already is presiding
over nine actions involving losartan and irbesartan claims. Third,
valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan, while distinct, allegedly
involve common manufacturing practices by common defendants that
have resulted in the same types of impurities in these drugs. A
complete identity of factual issues or parties is not a
prerequisite to Section 1407 transfer where, as here, the actions
arise from a common factual core. Fourth, defendants can raise
their concerns about efficiency with the transferee court and
propose measures to address these issues. As with any MDL, the
transferee judge may account, at his discretion, for any
differences among the actions by using appropriate pretrial
devices, such as separate tracks for discovery or motion practice
for the various products.
The Panel has explained that the risk of frivolous filings can be
managed efficiently within an MDL : "[T]he transferee court
handling several cases in an MDL likely is in a better position --
and certainly is in no worse position than courts in multiple
districts handling individual cases -- to properly address
meritless claims. There are many tools a transferee court may use
to accomplish this task. And importantly, if defendants believe
plaintiffs' counsel are filing frivolous claims, it is incumbent
upon defense counsel to bring that concern to the attention of the
transferee court, and to propose a process to identify and resolve
such claims."
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that the four actions involve common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2875, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. The Panel originally centralized actions alleging that
"plaintiffs purchased or used generic formulations of valsartan
medications containing the nitrosamine impurities NDMA and/or
NDEA." The losartan and irbesartan actions present common questions
of fact arising from the allegation that the same or substantially
similar manufacturing processes are used in the production of
valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan and result in the formation of
nitrosamine impurities in the same manner. Thus, the valsartan ,
losartan, and irbesartan actions will present common factual
questions as to the cause of the nitrosamine impurities and, in
particular, alleged common defects in the manufacturing process;
when defendants knew or should have known of the impurities; and
whether the amounts of nitrosamines in the medications presented a
risk of cancer or other injuries. Additionally, the actions likely
will involve overlapping discovery concerning the FDA
investigation, the same scientific studies, common expert witness
issues, and duplicative pretrial motions. For these reasons, Judge
Caldwell hereby expands the scope of MDL No.2875 to include actions
alleging that losartan and irbesartan contain nitrosamine
impurities, and rename the MDL "In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and
Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation."
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/NAaWVU
MDL 2919: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 10 CP4 Fuel Pump Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CP4 FUEL PUMP MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2919, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for centralization of 10 actions.
Plaintiffs in nine actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern
District of California, or, in the alternative, the Eastern
District of Michigan. The litigation consists of ten actions: two
actions each in the Northern District of California, the Southern
District of Florida, and the Eastern District of Michigan, three
actions in the Southern District of Texas, and one action in the
District of New Jersey. The parties have notified the Panel of two
potential tag-along actions.
Moving plaintiffs seek, in the first instance, the creation of a
single MDL. In the alternative, they request that the Panel create
three defendant-specific MDLs, but assign them to the same judge.
Responding parties' positions vary. Plaintiffs in the District of
New Jersey action support the Section 1407 motion. Defendants
General Motors LLC (GM), Ford Motor Company (Ford),and FCA US LLC
(FCA) oppose the motion. If the Panel orders centralization over
their objections, GM and Ford argue for defendant-specific MDLs in
the Eastern District of Michigan, and FCA favors centralization in
either the Eastern District of Michigan or the Southern District of
Texas.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge
Caldwell concludes that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions involve
allegations that the Bosch-supplied CP4 fuel pump in certain GM,
Ford, and FCA vehicles equipped with diesel engines is defective,
and that plaintiffs have suffered economic losses (e.g., repair
costs, diminution in value, etc.) as a result. Centralization thus
might, to some extent, avoid duplicative discovery and other
pretrial proceedings, and conserve the resources of the parties and
the judiciary.
Several considerations, however, cut against centralization.
First, there are only 10 constituent actions and two tag-alongs,
and each involves only one vehicle manufacturer (i.e., there are
five constituent cases against GM, four against Ford, and only one
against FCA). The risk of redundant discovery and inconsistent
class certification rulings is accordingly less significant. That
risk is further diminished in that plaintiffs in nine of the ten
actions, as well as one of the two tag-alongs, are represented by
the same attorneys.
Second, notwithstanding the existence of certain common factual
issues (such as whether the CP4 pump can function properly with
U.S. diesel fuel), these cases also present numerous
automaker-specific and plaintiff-specific issues. Individualized
issues include each automaker's design and testing of the subject
vehicles, its knowledge of the alleged defect, its interactions
with Bosch, and its marketing and communications with consumers.
Plaintiffs' own allegations indicate that the alleged defect does
not manifest itself in the same way from vehicle to vehicle, and
thus that considerable discovery likely will target plaintiffs'
individual -- and varying -- ownership experiences.
In Southern District of Texas (against FCA), the named plaintiff
Kevin Lee Berry alleges that he purchased a used 2014 Jeep Grand
Cherokee in April 2017, and experienced "catastrophic failure" of
the fuel pump system in June 2018. In Southern District of Florida
(against GM), the named plaintiff Frank Ginebra asserts that he
purchased a used 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD -- with
approximately 89,000 miles on the odometer -- in October 2017, but
that a "catastrophic CP4-induced failure" did not occur until
November 2018. In Eastern District of Michigan (against Ford), the
named plaintiff Mark William Droesser does not allege any specific
failure of the CP4 pump or engine in the 2015 Ford 350 that he
purchased new in May 2014(and that now has approximately 115,906
miles on it). Rather, Mr. Droesser more generally contends that
because of the CP4 pump, the vehicle has not provided the
"advertised combination of durability, power, reliability, and fuel
efficiency of diesel that Plaintiff relied upon."
Third, the three defendant vehicle makers are competitors. The
Panel is "typically hesitant to centralize litigation against
multiple, competing defendants which marketed, manufactured and
sold similar products." In particular, centralizing competing
defendants in the same MDL likely would complicate case management
due to the need to protect trade secret and confidential
information. "In addition, a multi-defendant MDL may prolong
pretrial proceedings, because of, inter alia, the possible need for
separate discovery and motion tracks, as well as the need for
additional bellwether trials." The record before the Panel contains
little, if anything, to overcome the Panel's usual reluctance to
centralize actions against different defendants in one MDL -- for
example, there is no allegation of a conspiracy involving the three
vehicle makers. In this instance, centralizing these ten
single-defendant cases likely would result in significant
inefficiencies and delay, without producing any substantial
offsetting benefits.
Moving plaintiffs' alternative request for creation of separate
MDLs for each defendant is not well taken. The relatively small
number of actions and the presence of the same plaintiffs' counsel
in almost all the actions suggest that cooperation and informal
coordination by the involved courts and counsel are practicable,
and should be effective in minimizing or eliminating duplicative
pretrial proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/9LFE5F
MDL 2920: Court Denies Centralization Bid of 3 Data Security Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: STOCKX CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2920, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Defendants' motion for centralization of three actions:
* Southern District of Florida - CASEY v. STOCKX, LLC, C.A. No.
1:19-23285
* Eastern District of Michigan - I.C. v. STOCKX, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:19-12441
* Eastern District of Pennsylvania - MCBRIDE v. STOCKX, LLC,
C.A. No. 2:19-03685
Defendants StockX LLC and StockX, Inc., move under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District
of Michigan. This litigation consists of three actions pending in
three districts. Plaintiffs in three actions and a potential
tag-along action oppose centralization. Plaintiffs in the Southern
District of Florida and the Eastern District of Michigan actions
alternatively suggest centralization in the Eastern District of
Michigan. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania plaintiff
alternatively suggests centralization in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the Northern District of California
Esquer potential tag-along action alternatively supports a Northern
District of California transferee district. Plaintiff in the
Eastern District of Michigan I.S. potential tag-along action takes
no position on centralization, but if ordered, plaintiff suggests
Eastern District of Michigan as the transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Caldwell concludes that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. These putative class actions
stem from a data breach of defendants' website, which is an online
platform to buy and sell like-new merchandise in four different
categories: sneakers, watches, handbags and street wear. The
breach was disclosed by StockX on August 3 and 9, 2019. Plaintiffs
allege that StockX failed to put in place reasonable data security
protections, allowing hackers to steal the personal information of
6.8 million customers. There are common factual and legal issues
among these cases, but the Judge is not persuaded that Section 1407
centralization is necessary.
Where only a few actions are involved, the proponent of
centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that
centralization is appropriate. Defendants have failed to meet that
burden here. This litigation involves only three actions and two
potential tag-along actions that share relatively straightforward
factual issues. Moreover, this litigation is not growing -- the
last of the five related cases was filed in September 2019. In
these circumstances, cooperation among the few involved courts and
counsel is a workable alternative to centralization.
The Panel has emphasized that "centralization under Section 1407
should be the last solution after considered review of all other
options." Given the options available to the parties and the courts
-- including agreeing to proceed in a single forum via Section 1404
transfer of all cases or other cooperative arrangements, such as a
stay of other cases while a single, agreed-upon case proceeds --
the Judge is not persuaded that centralization is needed here.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/slS9f2
MDL 2921: 4 Breast Implant Injury Suits Moved to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2921, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring four actions to the District of New
Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Brian R. Martinotti for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
The four actions are:
* Central District of California - A.B., ET AL. v. ALLERGAN,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:19-01651
* Central District of Illinois - TAUBEN v. ALLERGAN, INC., ET
AL., C.A. No. 2:19-02257
* Southern District of New York - DOE 1, ET AL. v. ALLERGAN,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:19-09151
* Middle District of Tennessee - ZETTLEMOYER v. ALLERGAN, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-00866
Plaintiffs in two actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Central District of California
or, alternatively, the Middle District of Tennessee. This
litigation currently consists of four actions pending in four
districts. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been
notified of 25 related federal actions.
All responding parties support or do not oppose centralization, but
disagree on the transferee district. The Allergan defendants
request centralization in the District of New Jersey. Responding
plaintiffs variously propose the Central District of California,
the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of
Florida, and the District of Kansas.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. All actions arise out of Allergan's announcement
on July 24, 2019, of a voluntary worldwide recall of its BIOCELL
textured breast implants and tissue expanders. The announcement
followed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's request to
initiate the recall based on the risk of breast-implant associated
anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) associated with the
products. All actions share complex factual questions arising from
the allegation that Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast implants and
tissue expanders significantly increase the risk of developing
BIA-ALCL, and that Allergan failed to warn the FDA, patients, and
healthcare providers of this risk. The common factual questions
include: (1) whether BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue
expanders can cause BIA-ALCL; (2) whether defendants knew or should
have known of the risk of BIA-ALCL; (3) whether they provided
adequate warnings as to the risk; and (4) the adequacy of
defendants' product design, testing, and manufacturing.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class
certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
The Judge concludes that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee forum. Allergan USA, Inc., has its
headquarters and principal place of business in this district, and
represented at oral argument that significant common evidence,
including witnesses, will be located there. Further,
centralization in the District of New Jersey enables the Panel to
assign this litigation to Judge Brian R. Martinotti, an experienced
transferee judge with the ability and willingness to manage this
litigation. The Judge is confident Judge Martinotti will steer
this matter on a prudent course.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 18, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/EHmfxG
MIDLAND CREDIT: Avila Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
RONALD AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14623 (E.D. La., Dec. 12,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504)534-5005
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sennhenn Sues Over Debt Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Sennhenn, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00058-WCG (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its illegal practices when attempting to collect
an alleged debt from the Plaintiff, which violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant mailed or caused to be
mailed a letter dated February 25, 2019, to the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff asserts that the Letter falsely suggests to the
unsophisticated consumer that the settlement offer was a one-time
take-it-or-leave-it offer. The Letter's false suggestion arises
from its totality, including (A) the statement "please note we are
not obligated to renew this offer; and, (B) four references to an
"Expiration Date" of 03/12/2019, one of which is in bold font; and
(C) two invitations to call NCI prior to 03/12/2019 to "accept this
offer." In fact, NCI and the creditor were willing to extend the
settlement offer beyond the March 12, 2019, deadline set in the
Letter.
The Defendant's use of a form letter like the Letter--which falsely
implies the settlement offer will not be renewed--competitively
disadvantages debt collectors who collect debts and do not falsely
imply that a settlement offer will not be renewed, the Plaintiff
contends. He adds that the Letter deprived him of truthful,
non-misleading information in connection with the Defendant's
attempt to collect the Debt.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a citizen of, and
resided in, the City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin.
NCI regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer
debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
3010 South Appleton Road
Menasha, WI 54952
Phone: (973) 379-7500
Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
Andrew@SternThomasson.com
Francis@SternThomasson.com
Katelyn@SternThomasson.com
NATIVE ROOTS: Faces Katt Suit in Colorado Alleging ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Native Roots IPCO,
LLC. The case is captioned as David Katt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Native Roots Ipco, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00003-STV (D. Colo, Jan. 2, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Scott T. Varholak.
The suit alleges violation of Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Defendant provides variety of high quality medical and
recreational marijuana, extracts, infused products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
NFI INDISTRIES: Meegan Sues over Biometric Data Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAWN MEEGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NFI INDISTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH14479 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 16, 2019) alleges violation
of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
disregarded employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Prior to taking
the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendants did not inform the
Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected,
stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically
about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics.
NFI Industries Inc. provides logistics and distribution services.
The Company offers transportation management, warehousing, freight
services, backhaul optimization, and fleet engineering solutions.
NFI Industries conducts business operations worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Mise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
NIBCO INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Defective PEX Plumbing System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Williams, Antonio Rodriguez, Jr., Princess Diane Pippen,
Diane Robinson and Maya Robinson, individually and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. NIBCO, Inc., Case No.
5:20-cv-00048 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 14, 2020), seeks relief for injuries
and damages that the Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of using
the defective PEX Plumbing system parts and components
manufactured, sold, and designed by NIBCO.
NIBCO's PEX system, parts and/or components alleged in this
complaint suffer from undisclosed design and/or manufacturing
defects that frequently cause them to fail prematurely in one or
more ways, the Plaintiffs allege. Specifically, the PEX Tubing is
prone to premature oxidative failure and creep rupture; the PEX
Tubings are prone to stress-induced fractures as a result of
chloride-induced cracking and/or as a result of their design and
chemical composition conjoined with PEX Fittings; the PEX Fittings
are prone to dezincification corrosion; and the PEX Clamps are
prone to failure by chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking.
When one or more of these PEX parts and components fail, it leads
to the permeation, leaking, and/or release of water, which can
cause significant damage to surrounding property and/or prevents
the plumbing system from functioning as intended, the Plaintiffs
state. The Plaintiffs assert they relied on the skill and judgment
of the Defendant on their design, sale, and manufacture of PEX
Products. They insist that the PEX Products were unfit for their
intended use and were not of merchantable quality, as warranted by
the Defendant, but instead contained the PEX Product Defects.
The Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability, as
the PEX Products were not of a merchantable quality due to the PEX
Product Defects, says the complaint. As a result of the Defendant's
breach, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered an
ascertainable loss in the form of direct monetary losses because
the Defendant has forced the Plaintiffs to pay for repairs, damage
in their homes, piping and plumbing, and/or the replacement of the
defective PEX Products.
The Plaintiffs had one or more of these PEX parts or components
installed in their homes in the State of Texas or the State of
Alabama.
NIBCO, Inc. has manufactured and advertised its PEX Products
(including the fittings, tubing, and clamps) for use in plumbing
systems throughout the United States, including the states of Texas
and Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George M. Fleming, Esq.
Gregory D. Brown, Esq.
FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, LLP
2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4000
Houston, TX 77056-6109
Phone: (713) 621-7944
Facsimile: (713) 621-9638
Email: george_fleming@fleming-law.com
gregory_brown@fleming-law.com
- and -
Ross Sears, Esq.
SEARS CRAWFORD LLP
1200 Rothwell St.
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 223-3333
Email: ross@searscrawford.com
PARSLEY ENERGY: Jagged Peak Energy Merger-Related Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parsley Energy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 2, 2020, that
the company is facing several class action suits related to its
merger with Jagged Peak Energy Inc.
On October 14, 2019, Parsley Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among Parsley, Jagged Peak Energy Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Jagged Peak"), and Jackal Merger Sub, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley
("Merger Sub").
The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, the merger
of Merger Sub with and into Jagged Peak, on the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, with Jagged
Peak continuing as the surviving corporation in the Merger. As a
result of the Merger, Jagged Peak would become a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parsley.
On November 26, 2019, Parsley filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus for the
solicitation of proxies in connection with the special meeting of
Parsley's stockholders, to be held on January 9, 2020, to vote
upon, among other things, matters necessary to complete the Merger
(the "Proxy Statement").
Following the initial filing of the Proxy Statement with the SEC,
six purported stockholders of Jagged Peak filed separate complaints
(including several putative class actions complaints, on behalf of
themselves and all owners of Jagged Peak's common stock, other than
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against Jagged Peak
and the directors of Jagged Peak.
The six complaints are captioned as follows: Eric Sabatini v.
Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02114 (D. Del.)
(the "Sabatini Action"), Jean-Pierre Enguehard v. Jagged Peak
Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 2019-cv-34328 (Distr. Ct., Denver,
CO) (the "Enguehard Action"), Kelly Small v. Jagged Peak Energy
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10698 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Small
Action"), Sherrie Wynne v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-03281 (D. Colo.) (the "Wynne Action"), Mark Prinzel v.
Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10886 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the “Prinzel Action”), and Stephen Bushansky v. Jagged Peak
Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-3433 (D. Colo.) (the
"Bushansky Action").
The Stockholder Actions allege that, among other things, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose certain allegedly material information
in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as Rule 14a-9 under the
Exchange Act.
The Enguehard Action further alleges that the directors of Jagged
Peak failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger by purportedly initiating a process to sell Jagged Peak
in a transaction that undervalues Jagged Peak.
The complaints seek injunctive relief enjoining the Merger and
damages and costs, among other remedies.
Parsley said, "It is possible that additional, similar complaints
may be filed or the complaints described above may be amended. If
this occurs, Jagged Peak does not intend to announce the filing of
each additional, similar complaint or any amended complaint unless
it contains materially new or different allegations. Although
Jagged Peak cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss from these matters, Jagged Peak and Jagged
Peak's defendant directors believe that these complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend them."
Parsley Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas company,
engages in the acquisition, development, production, exploration,
and sale of crude oil and natural gas properties in the Permian
Basin in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. The company was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.
PAX ASSIST INC: Underpays Wheelchair Agents, Rohoman Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ZAMER ROHOMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAX ASSIST, INC.; and ASMAHAN DAHBALI,
Defendants, Case No. 715725/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Dec. 19,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Rohoman was employed by the Defendants as wheelchair
agent.
Pax Assist, Inc. is engaged in the personal service industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Gaylord, Esq.
BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (516) 742-4949
Facsimile: (516) 742-1977
The Defendants are represented by:
JACKSON LEWIS LLP
58 S. Service Rd, 410
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 247-0404
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Parsons Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quentin Parsons, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP
STAFFING, Case No. 2020CH00473 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 14,
2020), is brought against the Defendant, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, to redress and curtail its unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and
proprietary biometric data.
Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's workers to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation,
Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff
contends. Specifically, the Defendant have violated and continues
to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly
inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of
the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by
BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, or otherwise use their
fingerprints, as required by BIPA; develop and adhere to a publicly
available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated individuals'
fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or
otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as
required by BIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois.
MVP provides staffing services and temporary employment
opportunities for employers and employees alike.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Fax: (312) 233-1560
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
PFIZER INC: Zantac Contains High Levels of NDMA, Viola Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANA VIOLA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. PFIZER INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00004-DLC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2,
2020), arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and
sale of ranitidine-based over-the-counter medications under the
brand name Zantac that contain dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.
Zantac is an over-the-counter medication that contains ranitidine,
which decreases the amount of acid created by the stomach.
Over-the-counter Zantac is used for the treatment of heartburn
associated with indigestion and sour stomach.
NDMA is a semivolatile organic chemical. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NDMA "is a member of
N-ni-trosamines, a family of potent carcinogens." While NDMA is not
currently produced in the United States other than for research
purposes, it was formerly used "in production of liquid rocket
fuel," among other uses. NDMA is listed as a "priority toxic
pollutant" in federal regulations. Exposure to NDMA can cause liver
damage and cancer in humans. NDMA is classified as a probable human
carcinogen, and animal studies have shown that "exposure to NDMA
has caused tumors primarily of the liver, respiratory tract, kidney
and blood vessels."
According to the complaint, the Defendant has always marketed
Zantac as a safe and effective product, despite evidence to the
contrary. Pfizer manufactured and maintained control over Zantac
from 2000 through December 2006. Pfizer inherited the rights to
Zantac when Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert, Inc. Pfizer was the
original new drug application (NDA) holder for over-the-counter
Zantac, and maintained control over the NDA through 2006. It was
Pfizer who procured Food and Ddrug Administration (FDA) approval
for an over-the-counter version of Zantac in the United States.
While the Defendant represented that its Zantac formulation was
safe for use, Zantac contains dangerously high levels of NDMA,
rendering the product dangerous and unfit for human consumption,
the Plaintiff contends. She avers that NDMA would not be present if
the medication were properly synthesized. She notes that the FDA
has found unacceptable levels of NDMA in samples of ranitidine.
The Plaintiff contends that she and the class were injured by the
full purchase price of their Zantac medications. She asserts that
these medications are worthless, as they contain harmful levels of
NDMA. She adds that as the medications expose users to NDMA well
above the legal limit, the medications are not fit for human
consumption.
The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of herself, the Class,
and the New Jersey Subclass for equitable relief and to recover
damages and restitution for breach of express warranty, breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
concealment, fraud, and conversion.
Ms. Viola began purchasing and consuming Zantac in 2000, at which
time the product was manufactured by the Defendant, and continued
to purchase and consume Zantac throughout Defendant's ownership and
control of the NDA for over-the-counter Zantac medication.
Pfizer maintained control over the NDA from 2000-2006. It was
Pfizer who procured FDA approval for an over-the-counter version of
Zantac in the United States. Pfizer conducts substantial business
in the United States, and specifically in the State of New Jersey.
Pfizer has been engaged in the manufacturing, distribution, and
sale of defective Zantac in the United States, including in the
State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
aobergfell@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
PHILADELPHIA URBAN: Underpays Juvenile Advocates, Bradley Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELIC BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GREATER PHILADELPHIA URBAN AFFAIRS
COALITION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05845-JD (E.D. Pa., Dec. 12,
2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff Bradley was employed by the Defendant as Juvenile
Advocate, Assistant Coordinator, and Crisis Intervention during her
tenure of employment.
The Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition is a non-profit
business duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Company provides back office
fiscal sponsorship and shared services to clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-021
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
ec@phillemploymentlawyer.com
POWER SOLUTIONS: Bid to Dismiss Treadwell Class Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December
27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
court has denied the company's motion to dismiss the class action
suit initiated by Jerome Treadwell.
In October 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. ("NOVAtime") in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In December 2018,
NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under the Class
Action Fairness Act.
Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit
without prejudice and filed an amended complaint in April 2019.
The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.
An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees.
In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's amended complaint.
On December 16, 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Power Solutions said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this matter or meaningfully quantify how the
final resolution of this matter may impact its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows."
Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.
PRICESMART INC: PERA Files Consolidated Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico (PERA) has filed a
consolidated class action complaint in the class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.
On May 22, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
PriceSmart, Inc., as well as certain former and current officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. On October 7, 2019, the Court granted Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico's (PERA's) Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
On January 3, 2020, PERA filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any
obligations or liability to the plaintiffs with respect to such
claims. The Company believes the claims are without merit.
PriceSmart, Inc. owns and operates U.S. style membership shopping
warehouse clubs in Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.
PriceSmart, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.
PROSHARES TRUST II: Consolidated NY Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 7, 2020, that
the Court has granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action in its entirety and ordered the case
closed.
ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") and ProShares Trust
II (the "Trust") are named as defendants in the following purported
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on the following dates: (i) on
January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.;
(ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust
II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v.
ProShares Trust II, et al.
The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same,
namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing untrue statements
of material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the
Trust are also defendants in the actions, along with a number of
others.
The Court consolidated the three actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On January 3, 2020, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the class consolidated action in its entirety and ordered the case
closed.
The plaintiffs may file a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, in which case, the Trust and Sponsor will
continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome of this
action. ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may incur
expenses in defending against such claims.
ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.
RAC ACCEPTANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------
ANA CHAVEZ; and REBECCA MACIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAC ACCEPTANCE TEXAS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No 5:19-cv-1430 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 10, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
The Plaintiff Chaves was employed by the Defendant as assistant
manager. The Plaintiff Macias was employed as customer service
representative.
RAC Acceptance Texas, LLC is a corporation organized and existing
under the State of Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meredith Q. McEntire, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: meredith@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
RED WHITE: Unwanted Marketing Practices Violates TCPA, York Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RED, WHITE & BLOOM, LLC, d/b/a 420 DANK, a Michigan
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-10097-SFC-RSW (E.D.
Mich., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to secure
redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, according
to the complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which
has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation,
and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and
members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Macomb
County, Michigan.
The Defendant is a cannabis company that is involved in
cultivation, process and manufacturing, and retail.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone (305) 479-2299
Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com
RITE AID: Josten and Stafford Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the class action
suits entitled, Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp., Case No.
17-CV-01340-AJB-JLB and Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., Case No.
18-CV-00152-AJB-JLB, have been consolidated under the Stafford
caption.
The Company is involved in two putative consumer class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp.,
Case No. 17-CV-01340-AJB-JLB (June 30, 2017) and Robert Josten v.
Rite Aid Corp., Case No. 18-CV-00152-AJB-JLB (January 23, 2018).
The lawsuits allege that (i) the Company was obligated to charge
the plaintiffs' insurance companies a "usual and customary" price
for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company failed to do so
properly because the prices it reported were not equal to or
adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to
uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings
Program.
Both lawsuits were consolidated under the Stafford caption on
November 12, 2019.
Rite Aid said, "At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is
not able to either predict the outcome of the consolidated lawsuit
or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit,
and is defending itself against these claims."
Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. The company operates
through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite
Aid Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.
SALT CREEK MIDSTREAM: Underpays Coating Inspectors, Bock Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALT CREEK MIDSTREAM LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01163-CG-GJF (D.N.M., Dec. 11, 2019) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
The Plaintiff Bock was employed by the Defendant as coating
inspector.
Salt Creek Midstream, LLC operates as a pipeline. The Company
transports natural gas, petrol, and diesels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjoseph@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
SUPREME HOME: Faces Dizon Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Dizon, individually, and as the derivative representative of
all similarly situated stockholders of Supreme Home Health Inc. v.
SUPREME HOME HEALTH INC., JESUSA BUNIAO, and ALMA VIUDEZ, Case No.
2020L000041 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Jan. 14, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of breaching their duties to the Plaintiff.
Since the time of acquiring her shares in SUPREME, the Plaintiff
says she was a member of the Board of Directors and an Employee of
SUPREME providing marketing services to SUPREME. In August 2018,
she alleges, SUPREME at the instruction of Defendants VIUDEZ and
BUNIAO, discontinued payment of wages to her although she continued
to continuously provide marketing services to SUPREME.
The Plaintiff alleges that in various years, including 2018,
through the present, Defendants VIUDEZ and BUNIAO misappropriated
corporate funds, including in the form of issuing corporate
shareholder distribution for their personal use, to the exclusion
of the Plaintiffs.
To the detriment of Plaintiff and SUPREME, Defendants VIUDEZ and
MAGZINO intentionally and repeatedly breached their fiduciary
duties in many ways, including misappropriated SUPREME's funds for
their own personal gain; and failed to create, and keep current,
accurate, and complete financial statements showing SUPREME's
financial condition. As a result of VIUDEZ and BUNIAO's breach of
their fiduciary duties to SUPREME, SUPREME and the Plaintiff have
been harmed, through the watering down of the value of the stock of
SUPREME, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a 33.3% owner of the outstanding shares of the
common stock of SUPREME HOME HEALTH INC.
SUPREME is a corporation operating as an Illinois-licensed home
healthcare agency in Downers Grove, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Raiz, Esq.
Frederick R. Bernardo, Esq.
JURISPRUDENCE HEALTH LAW GROUP PC
24W500 Maple Avenue, Suite 219
Naperville, IL 60540
Phone: (630) 995-9220
Email: mraiz@jurisprudencehealth.com
fbernardo@jurisprudencehealth.com
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Removes Bolanos Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case styled, MARIBEL BOLANOS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS
ROADHOUSE MANAGEMENT CORP.; TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Riverside (Case No. RIC1905332) to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on December 16, 2019. The clerk
of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-02413. The case is assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton.
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. owns and operates a full service restaurant
chain. The Company offers starters, salads, steaks, ribs, dinners,
sides, burgers, and sandwiches. Texas Roadhouse serves customers in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leigh A. White, Esq.
CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-1661
THREE GROUP: Underpays Entertainers, Jane Doe Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, aka Ariel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THREE GROUP, INC. dba CRAZY GIRLS;
MARCELLE EZERZER; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10609 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2019) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as entertainer.
Three Group, Inc. d/b/a Crazy Girls offers guests a personalized
experience with. unmatched entertainment, hospitality, after-hours,
hookah, and live stage shows. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
jacob@kristensenlaw.com
TRANS UNION: Gil Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------
GEOVANNY GIL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE. N.A.; and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07101 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2019)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Trans Union LLC develops and delivers information and risk
management solutions. The Company offers various credit monitoring
products, risk management solutions, marketing services, and other
related solutions. TransUnion provides its products and services
throughout the world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Telephone: (516) 668-6945
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
TRANS WORLD: Discovery in Spack Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23,
2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that
discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action suit
entitled, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp.
The company is defending two pending class actions.
The first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally
filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017. The Spack Action
alleges that the Company misclassified Store Managers ("SMs") as
exempt nationwide.
It also alleges that Trans World improperly calculated overtime for
Senior Assistant Managers "SAMs" nationwide, and that both SMs and
SAMs worked "off-the-clock." It also alleges violations of New
Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law with respect to calculating
overtime for SAMs.
The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, May 2017. The Roper Action also
asserts a nationwide misclassification claim on behalf of Store
Managers.
Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New
York, with the Spack Action being the lead case.
Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective of
SMs in June 2018, and that motion was partially granted in January
2019.
The opt-in period for the collective that was certified was closed
on April 6, 2019. Opt-in discovery relating to that potential
collective has commenced.
Trans World said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the plaintiffs' claims and intends to vigorously defend the
action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment
products. The company operates in two segments, For Your
Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend,
video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used
compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail
stores and e-commerce sites. Trans World Entertainment Corporation
was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York.
TRANS WORLD: Suit over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23,
2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit in
Massachusetts related to its Loyalty Memberships and Magazine
Subscriptions.
On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action
complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the
Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated
magazine subscriptions.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent.
The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all
persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged
for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions,
and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf.
On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit. On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed
lawsuit filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts
state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden
Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to
represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were
charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine
subscriptions.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in full, the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment
products. The company operates in two segments, For Your
Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend,
video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used
compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail
stores and e-commerce sites. Trans World Entertainment Corporation
was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York.
UNITED PARCEL: Sims Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Thomas Sims II, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; UPS, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. RG19035659, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 15,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00378-PSG-JC to
the proceeding.
The Complaint contains these purported causes of action: (a)
failure to pay minimum wage or overtime in violation of California
Labor Code and the Wage Orders; (b) failure to provide meal periods
in violation of California Labor Code and the Wage Orders; (c)
failure to provide rest breaks in violation of California Labor
Code and the Wage Orders; (d) failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Code; and
(e) unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
Matthew W. Morris, Esq.
Carlos I. Martinez-Garcia, Esq.
GBG LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 603-5000
Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
mattmorris@gbgllp.com
carlosmartinez@gbgllp.com
US FOODS: Faces Morris Suit Alleging ERISA and COBRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Morris and Donald Reed, on behalf of themselves, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. US FOODS, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00105 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 14, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985, by failing to provide the Plaintiffs with a COBRA
notice that complies with the law.
Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, the Defendant chose not to use the model form, presumably to
save the Defendant money, by pushing terminated employees away from
electing COBRA, the Plaintiffs allege. Put another way, the
Plaintiffs assert, instead of utilizing the DOL Model Notice and
sending a single COBRA notice "written in a manner calculated to be
understood by the average plan participant" containing all
information required by law, to save money, the Defendant instead
opted to break the information into multiple documents, mailed
separately under different cover, containing bits and pieces of
information on COBRA, both of which are still missing critical
information. In fact, the Plaintiffs say, the DOL Model Notice was
designed to avoid precisely the issues caused by the Defendant
confusing and piecemeal COBRA rights notification process.
The deficient COBRA notices at issue in this lawsuit both confused
and misled them, the Plaintiffs tell the Court. They add that it
also caused them economic injuries in the form of lost health
insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational
injuries.
The Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the US
Foods Health & Welfare Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by
failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with
adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue
their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event"
as defined by the statute, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant. Both were
covered under the Defendant's Health Plan, making both
participants/beneficiaries under the Plan.
The Defendant is an Illinois corporation but is registered to do
business in the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813-223-5505
Fax: 813-257-0572
Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Warren Police Appeals Stay to Pa. Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System filed an
appeal from a court ruling issued on September 20, 2019, in its
lawsuit entitled City of Warren Police and Fire v. USA
Technologies, Inc., et al., in the Chester County Court of Common
Pleas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 6,
2019, the Plaintiff has taken an appeal from an order granting the
Defendants' Petition for Stay.
The putative shareholder class action was filed against the
Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at
the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the
investment banks who served as underwriters in the May 2018
follow-on public offering of the Company (the "Underwriters"), in
the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Docket No.
2019-04821-MJ. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.
On September 20, 2019 the Court granted the defendants' Petition
for Stay and stayed the action until the consolidated shareholder
class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reaches a
final disposition.
The appellate case is captioned as City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Appellant v. USA Technologies, Inc. and Stephen
P. Herbert William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Craig-Hallum Capital
Group, LLC. Northland Securities, Inc., and Barrington Research
Associates, Inc. Priyanka Singh, Robert L. Metzger, Albin F.
Moschner William J. Reilly, and William J. Schoch, Appellees, Case
No. 3100 EDA 2019, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System is represented by:
Mark Robert Rosen, Esq.
Robert A. Hoffman, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
2001 Market St., Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7027
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
E-mail: mrosen@barrack.com
rhoffman@barrack.com
- and -
Jack Reise, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees USA Technologies, Inc. and Stephen P. Herbert
are represented by:
M. Norman Goldberger, Esq.
Laura Elise Krabill, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market St., Floor 51
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Telephone: (215) 864-8501
E-mail: goldbergerm@ballardspahr.com
krabilll@ballardspahr.com
- and -
George C. Zumbano, Esq.
LAMB MCERLANE, PC
24 E Market St.
P.O. Box 565
West Chester, PA 19381-0565
Telephone: (484) 459-2423
E-mail: zumbano@lambmcerlane.com
Participants Robert L. Metzger, Albin F. Moschner, William J.
Reilly, and William J. Schoch are represented by:
Abraham C. Reich, Esq.
Gerald E. Arth, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
2000 Market St., 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291
Telephone: (215) 299-2090
E-mail: areich@foxrothschild.com
garth@foxrothschild.com
Participant Priyanka Singh is represented by:
Carl W. Hittinger, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2929 Arch St., Floor 12
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 564-2898
E-mail: chittinger@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Douglas Green, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (212) 589-4201
E-mail: dgreene@bakerlaw.com
Participants William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Craig-Hallum Capital
Group, LLC, Northland Securities, Inc., et al., are represented
by:
Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq.
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
E-mail: marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com
lmcnally@morganlewis.com
WALGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger-Related Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself in a merger-related suit initiated by
purported Rite Aid stockholders.
On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the
"M.D. Pa. action") arising out of transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement between the Company and Rite Aid.
The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions.
The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 15, 2019. The Company filed an answer and
affirmative defenses, discovery commenced, and plaintiffs have
filed a motion for class certification. The Company's response to
that motion was filed on December 20, 2019.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Against Walgreen Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that discovery is
ongoing in the Illinois class action suit filed against Walgreen
Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.
Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on October 16, 2015. On September 30, 2016,
the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the
complaint on November 4, 2016 and filed an amended answer on
January 16, 2017.
Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on April 21,
2017.
The Court granted plaintiffs' motion on March 29, 2018 and merits
discovery is proceeding.
On December 19, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
and defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint on February 19,
2019.
On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.
Discovery is proceeding.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
WALMART INC: Maynez Consumer Class Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as SOFIA MAYNEZ, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WALMART,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV46866 (Filed Oct. 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Jan. 2, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00023 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Dale S. Fischer.
On May 7, 2019, the Plaintiff used the e-commerce app of Walmart,
INC. on her mobile phone to search for price and availability of
baby items she needed at WALMART's various stores in her geographic
area. When Plaintiff searched on the Walmart app, she found a 586
count box of Huggies Simply Clean Baby Wipes (Huggies Wipes) listed
for $5.44 and an 84 count box of Pull-Ups Girls' Learning Designs
Training Pants (Huggies Pull Ups) listed for $8.97, both available
in Aisle 22 at the Walmart store at 22015 Hawthorne Blvd. in
Torrance, California, according to the Walmart app. However, upon
her arrival at Aisle 22, after traveling to the Walmart store to
purchase the items listed, Plaintiff was shocked to learn the
prices at the Walmart store were substantially higher than what was
listed on search results in the Walmart app, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that Walmart is responsible for the damages
suffered by the Plaintiff and the members of the Class pursuant to
the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and California's False Advertising Law.
Walmart is a multinational corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, grocery store chains, and
e-commerce websites, selling goods to Consumers throughout the
country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
1638 South Pacific Coast Highway
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Telephone: (310) 536-1000
Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
ZILLOW INC: Brizer Sues over Deceptive Real Estate Sale Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAX BRIZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-11521 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019), alleges that prospective
homebuyers use the Defendant's website in beginning their home
search. This usage gives the Defendant's platform "the power to
tilt the real-world playing field in favor of its own favored
counterparties" -- "Premier Agents" -- who, unbeknownst to users,
pay monthly fees to be associated with properties they have no
connection to.
The Defendant relies on Premier Agents to collect revenue and is
incentivized to re-direct inquires made to listing agents and skew
its design and interface cues to benefit Premier Agents. These
tactics enable defendant to deliver on the 15-20 leads it promises
Premier Agents each month so that they continue paying, and
defendant's stock price keeps rising. The lawsuit contends that the
Defendant's practices are unfair and deceptive towards traditional
real estate brokers and listing agents and cause consumer
confusion, economic harm and deception. Prospective homebuyers are
stymied in attempting to contact a property's listing agents, who
are sought out for their connection to the property and their local
knowledge.
Zillow Group, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company
provides information about homes, real estate listings, and
mortgages through their website and mobile applications. Zillow
serves homeowners, buyers, sellers, renters, and real estate
professionals throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
James Chung, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
jchung_77@msn.com
*********
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 ***