/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 18 Headlines ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Compelled in Juarez FLSA Suit ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan's Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes Denied ALABAMA: District Court Dismisses Sutton Class Action ALDI INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Says ALLERGAN GROUP: Breast Implant Row Transferred to D. N.J. AMAZON: Pa. Supreme Court to Hear Security Check Class Action APPLE INC: Court Trims Defective Smart Watch Class Claims ARAB BANK: Israeli Terrorism Victims File Class Action ARDENT HEALTH: Faces ERISA Class Action in Tennessee ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Faces Shareholder Class Action AT&T: EFF Seeks Court Order to Turn Over Location Data Evidence BAOZUN INC: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit BEACHWOOD CINEMA: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime, Withheld Tips CARES COMMUNITY: Faces Fox Suit Over Breach of Employment Laws CENTENE CORP: Cisneros Labor Suit Remanded to State Court CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Guzman's Bid for Certification of Class Denied CORREVIO PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 10 Deadline DELTA DENTAL: Faces Braunstein Suit Over Insurance Monopsony DIGNITY HEALTH: Settles ERISA Class Action for $100 Million DOLLS KILL: Faces Curbelo Suit in California; May 13 Hearing Set DR. MARTENS: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Claims ELECTRIC RESEARCH: Hayes Hits Racial Discrimination in Workplace ENAGIC USA: Makaron's Bid to Certify Class, for Atty. Fees Gets OK FYRE FESTIVAL: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit May Not File 3rd Complaint GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Drivershaft Problem H&M HENNES: Not Entitled to Class Decertification of Employees HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Faces Moreau Employment Suit in California HEXO CORP: Hagens Berman Files Investor Class Action HSN INC: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Jewell Suit JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Lies About Safety of Opioid, PSIC Claims JD EARL WATERWORKS: Johnson Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay JPMORGAN CHASE: Carrillo Suit Challenges Improper Wage Practices JUUL LABS: Flores Suit Removed to Northern District of Illinois KEURIG DR PEPPER: Pels' Penafiel Water Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice KUDULIS REISINGER: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Luca LANDS' END: Delta Air Lines Workers Claim Uniforms Make Them Sick LAZER SPOT: Boyd Suit Removed From Circuit Court to N.D. Illinois LIFELABS: Faces $1.13-Bil. Data Breach Class Action LOUISIANA: Court OKs $256K Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Romain Suit LVNV FUNDING LLC: Lozano Invokes Right to Refuse to Pay Debt MADISON SECURITY: Faces Quartey Suit in New York Supreme Court MATTEL INC: February 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set MEI HAGALIL: Barnea Jaffa Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling MYLAN NV: Faces Brody Securities Suit Over Drop of Stock Price NET 1 UEPS: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Must Face Steering Class Action NYS THRUWAY: Donohue Renews Bid to Certify 3 Classes of Employees QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action RADIO CORP: Former Workers Awarded NT$2.3 Billion in Class Action RAP SUCCESS: Mastro Hits Retaliation Over Discrimination Claims RAUSCH STURM LLP: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Herrera REALGY ENERGY: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Robo Calls RING INC: Class Suit Claims Negligence Over Hacked Cameras SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Residents Can Seek Medical Monitoring SAKARA LIFE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SAUK VILLAGE, IL: Kempa Sues in Northern District of Illinois SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Wins Prelim Approval of Bermudez Suit Deal SHAW COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Defeat Discrimination Claim STEWART'S SHOPS: Six-Year Class Action Settled for $675K TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Feb. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Rosen Law Probing Securities Claims UNITED STATES: Discovery Stayed in Firearms Suit UNITED STATES: Michener Moves for Certification of Rule 23 Class UNITED STATES: NS Moves to Certify Class of Indigent Detainees UNITED STATES: Siraj Moves for Certification of Inmates Class UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA: B.C. Appeal Court OKs Class-Action Lawsuit WARNER MUSIC: Williams Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Receivers WINCO FOODS: Johnson Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Workers [*] Cannabidiol Industry Expected to Face More Lawsuits in 2020 [^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 4 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Files Chapter 11 to Address Legacy Asbestos Claims ********* ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Compelled in Juarez FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned SARAH REYNOSA-JUAREZ, Plaintiff, v. ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-06302-EJD. (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Sarah Reynosa-Juarez is a traveling nurse who worked for Defendants at Kaiser Permanente's San Jose Medical Center. Plaintiff routinely worked overtime and through her meal and rest periods because her patient care obligations required her to do so. Plaintiff filed a class and collective action complaint to seek redress for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the California Labor Code, and Unfair Competition Laws. Under their Renewed Motion to Compel, Defendants Accountable Healthcare Staffing and Accountable Healthcare Holdings argued that pursuant to an employment arbitration agreement, the Plaintiff must be compelled to arbitrate her claims individually. Having considered the Parties' papers, the Court agrees and grants Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff initially argued that Defendants waived their arbitration rights. In light of the policy in favor of arbitration, waivers are not to be lightly inferred and the party seeking to establish a waiver bears a heavy burden of proof. To demonstrate waiver of the right to arbitrate, a party must show: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) acts inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration resulting from such inconsistent acts. Plaintiff argued that because Defendants withdrew their earlier motion to compel arbitration, they have participated in the litigation process and waived their right to pursue arbitration. In Plaintiff's view, the case law indicates that a motion to compel arbitration may not be granted after a previous withdrawal, unless the withdrawal was based on futility. Likewise, Plaintiff contended delaying a motion to compel arbitration for tactical purposes demonstrates waiver. The Court notes that the Plaintiff provides no precedent supporting her theory that tactical decisions show waiver. To the contrary, the tactical reasons cited by Plaintiff do not rise to the level of filing motions to dismiss, seeking a decision on the merits, active participation in discovery or spending seventeenth months litigating the case. On the other hand, the Court points out Defendants' conduct was consistent with their right to arbitrate -- they did not "substantially invoke" the litigation machinery by taking the inconsistent step of filing action seeking early resolution of the merits. Thus, the totality of Defendants' actions, especially in light of the federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements, do not satisfy the elements of "Inconsistent Actions/Substantial Invocation of Litigation Machinery/Important Intervening Steps." To establish prejudice, a plaintiff must show that because of the defendant's delay in seeking arbitration, they incurred unnecessary costs, will be forced to relitigate an issue they already prevailed on in court, or that the defendant received an advantage in federal court that they would not have received in arbitration. The only volitional acts Defendants undertook were to serve document requests on Plaintiff and notice Plaintiff's deposition. The Court opines that this, however, does not rise to the level of prejudice discussed in Martin v. Yasuda, 829 F.3d 1118, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2016), these actions neither caused a lengthy delay nor constitute active litigation. To the contrary, the Martin case referenced a seventeen month delay and referred to active litigation as litigating the merits of the case. This argument, thus, is unpersuasive and Plaintiff cannot show prejudice, the Court finds. Plaintiff further argued his agreement with the Defendants is unconscionable. Here, the agreement is mutual, it requires both parties to arbitrate all claims arising out of the employment relationship, the Court notes. Plaintiff next argued that the agreement does not cover her meal, rest period, or overtime claims. In light of the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration and the ambiguity discussed, the Court holds the arbitration agreement covers Plaintiff's claims. Finally, Plaintiff argued that she is entitled to bring a collective or class arbitration against Defendants. The Court rejects this and holds that class arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims is not permitted by the Arbitration Agreement because there is no contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to authorize it. Accordingly, Judge Davila (1) GRANTS Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims on an individual basis; (2) SEVERS the provision of the agreement requiring arbitration occur in Florida; and (3) ORDERS the arbitration to occur within the geographic boundaries of judicial district of Northern California pursuant to Defendants' stipulation. The action will remain stayed in its entirety pending the final resolution of arbitration. A full-text copy of Judge Davila's November 7, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhd33y4c from Leagle.com Sarah Reynosa-Juarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan Bunnell Piller - npiller@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Joshua Geoffrey Konecky - jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Leslie H. Joyner - ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP. Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. & Accountable Healthcare Holdings Corp, Defendants, represented by Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi - Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com - Jackson Lewis P.C. & Mariko Mae Ashley - mariko.ashley@jacksonlewis.com - Jackson Lewis P.C.. ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan's Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Wendy W. Berger denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA MORGAN v. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. and NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-01342-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Judge Berger opines that the Plaintiff has not shown that class claims predominate over questions affecting individual class members or that a class action is the superior method for resolution of this controversy. Judge Berger also opines that the Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing predominance because there is actual proof that issues regarding class membership and consent will affect numerous potential class members in this case. Additionally, because the individualized issues predominate, the Plaintiff has also not shown that maintenance of a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating this controversy, Judge Berger notes. To the contrary, Judge Berger adds, the individualized inquiry into class membership and consent would make maintenance of a class in this case unmanageable and burdensome, citing Sacred Heart Health Sys., Inc. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., Inc., 601 F.3d 1159, 1184 (11th Cir. 2010). In September 2015, non-party M.R. was treated at Defendant Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.'s ("AdventHealth Orlando") hospital facility. At that time, M.R. gave AdventHealth Orlando permission to contact her at a phone number ending in 2301. Thereafter, the 2301 Number was reassigned to the Plaintiff. Defendant Medical Services, Inc. ("MSI") contracts with AdventHealth Orlando to attempt to collect patient payments before they become past due or delinquent. If MSI is not successful, AdventHealth Orlando contracts with Defendant North American Credit Services, Inc. ("NACS") to collect debts on past due accounts. It is not disputed that MSI placed three calls to the 2301 Number after it was reassigned to the Plaintiff, and NACS placed one call. As a result of these calls, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In addition to her individual claims, the Plaintiff also seeks to certify these classes for class action claims against the Defendants pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A. [AdventHealth Orlando] Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) [AdventHealth Orlando] or anyone acting on its behalf placed a nonemergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong number and/or not to call; B. MSI Sub-Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) MSI placed a non-emergency telephone call relating to a[n] [AdventHealth Orlando] debt (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong number and/or not to call; and C. NACS Sub-Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) NACS placed a non-emergency telephone call relating to a[n] [AdventHealth Orlando] debt (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong number and/or not to call.[CC] ALABAMA: District Court Dismisses Sutton Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Karon Owen Bowdre of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned LENA SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. STEVE MARSHALL, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-660-KOB. (N.D. Ala.). In February 2019, Ms. Sutton loaned her car to his friend, Roger Maze. Police pulled Mr. Maze over while he was driving Ms. Sutton's car. During the traffic stop, law enforcement found a trafficking amount of methamphetamine in Ms. Sutton's car. Ms. Sutton had no knowledge of the methamphetamine and faces no criminal charges. Ms. Sutton asserts that Alabama's seizure of her car and the subsequent civil forfeiture proceedings deprive her and other similarly situated putative class members of her rights. Nevertheless, the state seized Ms. Sutton's car because it was used to transport drugs and then instituted a civil forfeiture action pursuant to Alabama's Civil Forfeiture Act, Ala. Code Sec. 20-2-93. State court records show that the state served Ms. Sutton with a complaint in the civil forfeiture action in March 2019. After Ms. Sutton failed to adequately respond to the complaint, the state entered a default judgement in April 2019. Ms. Sutton then filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, in which she stated that she was not accused of any crime and that the seizure of her car was unconstitutional. The state court set aside the default and Ms. Sutton filed an answer in July 2019, raising claims that the seizure of her car violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. She did not raise her claims regarding the constitutionality of the retention of her vehicle. The forfeiture proceedings have yet to go to trial. Under an amended complaint, Ms. Sutton asserts that Alabama's seizure of her car and the subsequent civil forfeiture proceedings deprive her - and other similarly situated putative class members - of her rights. Ms. Sutton seeks to bring a class action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. She argues that the state's failure to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing after it seizes property violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. She further asserts that Alabama's procedures do not provide defendants in civil forfeiture proceedings with an opportunity to contest the deprivation of their property during the pendency of the forfeiture litigation, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Ms. Sutton also argues that Alabama's civil forfeiture proceedings violate the Eighth Amendment. In his motion to dismiss, Attorney General Marshall argued that the district court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction over Ms. Sutton's complaint pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. In re Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971) stated that courts of equity should not enjoin state criminal proceedings pursuant to the notions of comity and respect. The Attorney General asserts that the district court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction because the Plaintiff asks the district court to interfere in state court proceedings. The Attorney General also asserts that Younger abstention applies because Ms. Sutton can raise her constitutional claims in her state forfeiture proceedings, and, in fact, already has raised some of her constitutional claims. The Attorney General notes that Ms. Sutton could pay a bond to have her vehicle released or could file a motion in state court for the release of her seized vehicle, neither of which she has done. Alternatively, Attorney General Marshall argues that Ms. Sutton has not stated any claim for which relief can be granted. The Attorney General attaches to his motion to dismiss documents from relevant state court proceedings, which show that Ms. Sutton's forfeiture action has yet to be resolved. As an initial matter, the District Court finds unconvincing Ms. Sutton's argument that no ongoing state proceedings exist dealing with the continued retention of her car during her forfeiture proceedings. Ms. Sutton construes the issue too narrowly. While neither Ms. Sutton nor the state has instigated proceedings dealing explicitly and solely with the issue of whether the state can retain her car during her forfeiture proceedings without certain procedural measures, the forfeiture proceedings completely encompass the issue of whether the state has a right to hold Ms. Sutton's car, either permanently or temporarily. Further, Ms. Sutton could take advantage of available methods within the state court proceeding to challenge the state's retention of her vehicle, the Court notes. The District Court further notes that Ms. Sutton also fails to show that federal relief will not interfere with the ongoing state court proceeding. The District Court says it will give the state court more than "a little respect" and abstain from hearing the Sutton case under the Younger abstention doctrine. Accordingly, the District Court will grant, by separate order, Attorney General Marshall's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yeyoqxpr from Leagle.com Lena Sutton, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated as described below, Plaintiff, represented by Allan L. Armstrong - Allan@ArmstrongLawCenter.com - ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER LLC, Brian M. Clark , WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203 & Darrell L. Cartwright , CARTWRIGHT LAW CORPORATION, 2820 Columbiana Rd, Po Box 383204, Birmingham, AL, 35238-3204 Steve Marshall, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendant, represented by Brad A. Chynoweth , Office of the Attorney General & Laura E. Howell , ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. ALDI INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON CAMACHO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ALDI INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-07006 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille so they may be fully accessible 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 her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff alleges. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. ALDI owns and operates grocery stores. The Company offers grocery, meat, fresh produce, wine and beer, beverages, and other home products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., #208 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: 516 695 0052 Facsimile: 212 656 1845 E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 ALLERGAN GROUP: Breast Implant Row Transferred to D. N.J. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jessica Valdez, Jennifer Encinas, Marcie Gawronski, Amy LaGioia and Kerry Andersen Doumite, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc. (previously Inamed Corporation), Allergan USA, Inc. and Allergan PLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01931 (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2019) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 2, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00034. Plaintiffs seek to recover compensable damages caused by negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty and for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL (C) saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported of cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plaintiffs had BIOCELL implants that are subject to the said recall and experienced severe discomfort. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nicholas Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com - and - Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor P.A. 316 South Baylen Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Tel: (850) 435-7138 Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com Defendants are represented by: Naoki S. Kaneko, Esq. SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP Jamboree Center 5 Park Plaza Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 475-1500 Fax: (949) 475-0017 AMAZON: Pa. Supreme Court to Hear Security Check Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Juliana Feliciano Reyes, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that it's a question that's been winding its way through courts across the country in a series of cases for nearly a decade -- and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently agreed to weigh in. The state's top court said on Dec. 27 that it would hear the proposed class action, as per a request from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an Ohio-based court whose judges said they were not familiar enough with Pennsylvania state law to decide the case. In a unanimous decision made in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under federal law, Amazon does not have to pay its workers for time spent waiting for security screenings. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will now decide whether Pennsylvania's minimum-wage law requires the company to do so. The two plaintiffs named in the case are Neal Heimbach and Karen Salasky, both of whom worked at the Amazon warehouse in Breinigsville, Pa., in the Lehigh Valley. The two have been outspoken about working conditions in the early 2010s, a time of less public scrutiny on Amazon's warehouses. They originally filed the proposed class action in 2013. The plaintiffs said the security checks, aimed at preventing theft, could take up to 20 minutes after they clocked out. Workers in Nevada who had brought a similar case said it could take up to 25 minutes to complete a screening, during which workers passed through a metal detector and waited in a second line to get searched with a metal-detecting wand. That's in contrast to the company's strict tracking of employee breaks. In court documents, Amazon has described claims of the security process taking that long as "grossly inaccurate." In the years since the Heimbach and Salasky case was filed, backlash against Amazon has grown. After a widely publicized search for a second headquarters led Amazon to choose Long Island City, Queens, for one of its locations, community organizers raised concerns about gentrification and the billions of dollars in financial incentives offered to the company. Amazon eventually pulled out of Queens. Several investigations, including a recent report by Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, have suggested that the company puts productivity over the safety of its warehouse workers. And across the country, Amazon workers -- both white collar and low wage -- have been organizing and walking out over working conditions and issues such as the company's impact on climate change. Amazon was projected to have $238 billion in sales in 2019. It employs 750,000 people. Its CEO, Jeff Bezos, is one of the richest people in the world. The Philadelphia area is home to several Amazon warehouses, including a recently opened location in West Deptford that the company says employs more than 1,500, another in King of Prussia, and a "Prime Now" warehouse in Philadelphia's University City neighborhood. [GN] APPLE INC: Court Trims Defective Smart Watch Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Apple Inc. doesn't have to defend claims that it violated New Jersey consumer protection law by knowingly selling defective Apple Watches, because the complaint didn't sufficiently allege the company knew the watches were defective when sold, a federal court in the state said. Gina Priano-Keyser's class action complaint didn't show that Apple concealed its knowledge that the smart watch batteries would swell, causing the screens to crack, shatter, or detach from the watch body, in order to induce people to purchase the watches, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey said. [GN] ARAB BANK: Israeli Terrorism Victims File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Batya Jerenberg, writing for World Israel News, reports that more than a thousand Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism have banded together to sue the Jordan-based Arab Bank PLC for knowingly supporting terrorism, Israel Hayom reported on Dec. 31. They are demanding 20 billion shekels in compensation. It is the first time Israelis have targeted a bank for its involvement in terror, Israel Hayom reports. They are charging the financial institution with systematically supporting, aiding, funding and encouraging acts of terror in Israel by operatives of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah and other organizations. The law firms representing the 1,132 people injured in terrorist attacks and families of those killed, MM Law and Markman & Tomashin, further claim that the bank's CEO even established a support fund for terrorists and their families, to which he would contribute $500,000, and the bank promised a further $2 million. The case will focus on attacks perpetrated between 1995 and 2005, a time period when hundreds of Israelis were murdered and thousands injured in the Jewish state after the Oslo peace accords were signed, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was created, and PA President Yasser Arafat instigated the Second Intifada. Some of the more infamous suicide bombings cited in the lawsuit were the Dolphinarium (2001), Sbarro (2001) and Park Hotel (2002) attacks. At the Dolphinarium, a Tel Aviv nightclub, most of the 21 killed and 120 injured were youths. The Sbarro pizza shop bombing in the heart of Jerusalem killed 15 and wounded over 100. The terrorist who blew himself up in the Netanya Park Hotel murdered 30 and wounded 160 who had gathered for the Passover Seder. This lawsuit follows a successful U.S. suit against the Arab Bank on similar charges. In 2014, 10 years after the case was first brought, a Brooklyn, N.Y. federal jury unanimously found the bank liable for knowingly providing financial services to a group that the U.S. had long designated as a terrorist organization -- Hamas. The 527 plaintiffs, all American citizens, proved that Arab Bank had consciously maintained accounts for Hamas leaders and organizations and facilitated millions of dollars' worth of bank transfers to Hamas operatives and families of suicide bombers. It was the first time that a financial institution was found liable under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, which until then had been used to sue terrorist organizations like the PLO and terror-supporting countries like Iran. While the bank appealed the verdict, it also came to an agreement with the plaintiffs on a settlement whose size would depend on whether it lost or won the appeal. This would save both sides from having to engage in another expensive, years-long trial, and guarantee that the plaintiffs would receive compensation. In 2018, while confirming the essential truth of the claims, a federal appeals court overturned the verdict due to the trial judge having given the jury incorrect instructions. Although the exact amount the plaintiffs then received due to the prior agreement was confidential, it was reported that Arab Bank had set aside $1 billion for the terror victims and their families. [GN] ARDENT HEALTH: Faces ERISA Class Action in Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------- John Manganaro, writing for PlanSponsor, reports that Ardent Health Services is the target of a new Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit. The proposed class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and names as defendants Ardent Health Services, the company's board of directors and more than 30 individual fiduciary defendants both named and unnamed. The complaint alleges that the nearly $1 billion-plan's fiduciaries have failed 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 performance. The complaint further alleges that fiduciaries inappropriately maintained certain funds in the plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. "To make matters worse, 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 complaint states. "Defendants' mismanagement of the plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104." Other allegations include that plan fiduciaries permitted overpayments for recordkeeping and administrative services. The complaint argues that the defendants' actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the plaintiffs assert claims against defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence (count one) and failure to monitor fiduciaries (count two). As have other recently filed ERISA complaints, this new lawsuit anticipates and seeks to overcome challenges to its timeliness. "Plaintiffs did not have knowledge of all material facts … necessary to understand that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in other unlawful conduct in violation of ERISA until shortly before this suit was filed," the complaint states. "Further, plaintiffs did not have and do not have actual knowledge of the specifics of defendants' decision-making process with respect to the plan, including defendants' processes for selecting, monitoring, and removing plan investments, because this information is solely within the possession of defendants prior to discovery. Having never managed a jumbo 401(k) plan such as the plan, plaintiffs lacked actual knowledge of reasonable fee levels and prudent alternatives available to such plans." One unique feature of this complaint relative to other excessive fee and failure to monitor lawsuits filed in recent years is a short discussion of Sageview Advisory Group being a "non-defendant fiduciary." "Upon information and belief, Sageview Advisory Group LLC is the investment consultant hired to assist the committee and Ardent in their role in selecting and monitoring the plan's investment options," the complaint states. "Sageview is listed on the 2018 Form 5500 as a consultant and was paid $75,000 in compensation by the plan in 2018. . . . Although Sageview is a relevant party and likely to have information relevant to this action, it is not named as a defendant given that Ardent remains responsible for the overall selection and monitoring of all investment options. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Sageview as a defendant in the future if deemed necessary." Ardent has not yet returned a request for comment. [GN] ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Faces Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI) Investors Affected: March 6, 2018 - November 4, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Armstrong Flooring, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) the Company's internal control over inventory levels was not effective; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/armstrong-flooring-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5102&from=1 Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC) Investors Affected: June 21, 2019 - November 13, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Canopy Growth Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing weak demand for its softgel and oil products; (2) as a result, the Company would be forced to take a CA$32.7 million restructuring charge due to poor sales, excessive returns, and excess inventory; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/canopy-growth-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=5102&from=1 Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB) Investors Affected: September 11, 2019 - November 14, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Aurora Cannabis Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as opposed to the Company's representations, Aurora's revenue would decline in its first quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) the Company would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun facilities; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5102&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] AT&T: EFF Seeks Court Order to Turn Over Location Data Evidence --------------------------------------------------------------- Dom DiFurio, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that a digital rights nonprofit group is pressuring a U.S. district court to force Dallas-based AT&T to turn over evidence that it no longer sells customers' location data collected by mobile phones to third party aggregators. The nonprofit, known as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has been fighting AT&T in court for months, attempting to get an order preventing AT&T from the "systemic, and unauthorized sale of its wireless phone customers' sensitive location data," according to court documents. The foundation, created in 1990 as an activist organization dedicated to privacy, free speech and innovation in the digital era, represents several AT&T customers residing in California in the class-action suit playing out in the state's Northern District Court. The customers sued, alleging that AT&T's practices were "an egregious and dangerous breach of Plaintiffs' and all AT&T customers' privacy, as well as a violation of state and federal law." Telecom companies like AT&T are in a unique position because the data they can collect is sprawling, powerful and highly coveted by many industries. Data that illustrates human habits in great detail is attractive to marketing and advertising companies -- but also to bounty hunters, prisons, bail bondsmen, law enforcement officers and people who could pose real danger to customers. In its lawsuit, the foundation argues that AT&T "quietly sold its customers' real-time location data to third-party aggregators knowing that once sold, that sensitive location data would later enter the marketplace where it could be used for nefarious purposes." In response, AT&T told the court that it stopped selling users' location data to third parties in March 2019 and asked for the lawsuit to be thrown out, submitting its communication with the FCC as evidence it stopped the practice. "Location-based services like roadside assistance, fraud protection, and medical device alerts have clear and even life-saving benefits. We only share location data with customer consent and voluntarily stopped sharing it with aggregators months before this lawsuit was filed," AT&T said in a statement. The foundation, in recent motions seeking additional evidence from AT&T, said the company has a history of "misrepresentations and omissions" in statements to the public and members of Congress about whether AT&T stopped disclosing customer location data. AT&T announced in June 2018 that it would be "phasing out" its sale of users' location data to aggregation firms after New York Times reporting revealed sensitive location data was finding its way from aggregators to parties that were not obtaining customers' consent to be tracked. The company claims it expedited its phase out in January, according to a letter sent to the FCC that was submitted in court. Online tech publication Motherboard reported that phone providers were still allowing third parties access to precise real-time data as recently as February 2019. That location data, called "assisted GPS," combines GPS data with cell tower data, WiFi and Bluetooth to reveal customers' locations down to the room they're in within a building. It's typically reserved for use by emergency personnel. Motherboard paid a bounty hunter $300 to geolocate a T-Mobile phone with data that originated from telecom companies. The bounty hunter was accurate down to the block. The foundation wants a California judge to require AT&T to prove that it stopped selling users' location data, as well as a list of who bought the data from the company. The nonprofit is also seeking internal and external documents from AT&T that show how it described its actions when it came under scrutiny for selling location data. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for the end of February. [GN] BAOZUN INC: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Baozun Inc. (NASDAQ: BZUN) between March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To join the class action, http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=baozun-inc&id=2130 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=baozun-inc&id=2130. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial statements or omitted to disclose (1) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. ("Huawei"), a Chinese-based multi-national technology company, was one of the Company's largest brand partners, and paid more add-on fees for the work Baozun did for it, increasing the revenues Baozun received for Huawei work compared to the Company's other brand partners; (2) as a result, Baozun reported outsized revenue growth during the first half of 2019, which would be abruptly cut off during the second half 2019, after Baozun restructured its relationship with Huawei, as Huawei took much of its online merchandising in-house; and (3) as a result, Baozun's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Contact: Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 tel: (800) 991-3756 E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN] BEACHWOOD CINEMA: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime, Withheld Tips ----------------------------------------------------------- Tai'Jae Haynes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Beachwood Cinema, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00003 (N.D. Ohio, December 2, 2020), seeks overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for the hours he worked over 40 each workweek; minimum wages and recovery of withheld tips that were shared with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, including housekeeping employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Beachwood Cinema, LLC operates as "Silverspot Cinema," a movie theater in Beachwood, Ohio which includes food and bar service before the moving screening where Haynes worked as a server between September 2018 and September 2019. Servers are paid below minimum wage rates and thus rely on tips to augment their income, notes the complaint. Haynes also claims Beachwood Cinema did not issue wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com CARES COMMUNITY: Faces Fox Suit Over Breach of Employment Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cares Community Health, et al. The case is captioned as Katrina Fox, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Cares Community Health, One Community Health, and Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2019-00271128-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Dec. 11, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. One Community is a specialty care & affordable primary health care clinic. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION Telephone: 818-230-7502 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com CENTENE CORP: Cisneros Labor Suit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in the case captioned CARMELA CISNEROS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; MICHAELINE FLOWER, an individual; and DOES 2 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01010-L-MSB. (S.D. Cal.). From July 25, 2006, through March 7, 2018, Plaintiff was employed by Centene Corporation and Health Net Federal Services, LLC as a Clerical Specialist in San Diego County. On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff's filed a complaint against Centene and Michaeline Flower in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging various claims relating from her termination of employment. In March 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added defendant Health Net. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2018, she took leave to care for her husband who suffered a shoulder injury. Upon returning from leave, she was terminated for falsifying medical documents related to her husband's injury. Plaintiff claims she was terminated in retaliation for taking leave to care for her injured husband. Id. In May 2019, Centene removed the case to the Southern District of California, claiming diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, 1446(b)(3). Plaintiff now moves to remand. Plaintiff contends there are two reasons the case must be remanded to state court. First, Plaintiff contends that Flower is not a sham defendant; thus, there is not complete diversity among the parties. Second, Plaintiff contends the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Plaintiff alleges two claims against Flower: (1) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and (2) defamation under California law. Centene asserts Flower was fraudulently joined in the action and that her citizenship should be disregarded in evaluating whether complete diversity exists. Centene contends that the CFRA does not allow for individual liability for retaliation. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that the CFRA's liability extends to individuals because the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) incorporates most of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations into the CFRA. However, the FMLA defines employer as any person who employs 50 or more employees and includes any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employer's employees. Although Plaintiff asserts that 2 Cal. Code Regs Section 7297.7 unmistakably confirms that CFRA retaliation liability extends to individuals, the regulation does not address the issue of whether the supervisor of an employer may be held individually liable. In light of settled California law on this issue, Plaintiff cannot establish a CFRA retaliation claim against Flower, in Flower's individual supervisor capacity, the Court opines. Centene contends that "Plaintiff cannot possibly maintain a defamation claim against Flower because Plaintiff is unable to attribute the supposed defamatory statements to Flower." The District Court disagrees. Plaintiff's admission that she lacks personal knowledge of Flower's publication of the alleged defamatory statements is insufficient to show that Plaintiff cannot establish a defamation cause of action against Flower. Notably, the parties have yet to engage in discovery from which evidence that Flower publicized defamatory statement(s) could be revealed. Accordingly, it is not clear and obvious that Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against Flower either for defamation. For that reason, the Court finds that Flower is not a sham defendant. Thus, Flower shall remain as a party in the action and complete diversity does not exists here. For that reason, the Court finds that complete diversity is destroyed and federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. For reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted, the District Court ruled. The action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiff asks the District Court to order for Centene to pay costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). The District Court declines to make such an award because the removal was not frivolous or filed for an improper purpose. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydrjcdyw from Leagle.com. Carmela Cisneros, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Seung Yang - seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com - Moon & Yang, APC & Christopher Lee Garcia - chris.garcia@moonyanglaw.com - Moon & Yang, APC. Centene Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Maria Rowena Guillermo Santos - santosro@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Guzman's Bid for Certification of Class Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled ADRIANA GUZMAN, et al. v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02606-HSG (N.D. Cal.). According to the Order, having reviewed the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Adriana Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana Lira, and Jonathan Poot do not satisfy commonality or typicality. "In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite showing for class certification and, accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for class certification," Judge Gilliam explains. The Court sets a further case management conference for Feb. 11, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on February 17, 2017, in San Francisco County Superior Court, asserting claims for employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under California law. Defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC, removed this action on May 5, 2017. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants and their corporate policies "systematically discriminate" against their employees based on employees' "Hispanic race and/or Mexican national origin." The Plaintiffs bring several causes of action against the Defendants under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act ("FEHA") for disparate treatment employment discrimination; disparate impact employment discrimination; harassment on the basis of race or national origin; failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; and retaliation. The Plaintiffs move to certify a single class, defined as: All current and former hourly employees of Chipotle, who are Hispanic and/or of Mexican national origin, and worked at Chipotle restaurant locations in California during the period November 14, 2011 until the resolution of this action (the "Class").[CC] CORREVIO PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 10 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Correvio Pharma Corporation (CORV) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 19-cv-11361, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Correvio securities between October 23, 2018 and December 5, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Correvio securities during the class period, you have until February 10, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Correvio is a specialty pharmaceutical company that engages in developing therapeutics worldwide. The Company's portfolio of marketed brands comprise, among others, vernakalant IV, or Brinavess, for the rapid conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation ("AF") to sinus rhythm. Earlier during Brinavess's development, safety concerns led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to decline approval for Brinavess after a patient with no apparent heart issues had died after being administered the drug during one of its clinical trials. The FDA then mandated a clinical hold on the Brinavess program, which remains in effect in the U.S. Correvio's SEC filings would later characterize the patient death that precipitated the clinical hold as "a single unexpected serious adverse event of cardiogenic shock experienced by a patient with AF who received vernakalant (IV)." On October 23, 2018, Correvio announced its intention to resubmit a New Drug Application ("NDA") for Brinavess to the FDA for recent onset AF (the "Resubmitted NDA"), which followed additional purported safety data the Company had accumulated, as well as discussions with the FDA regarding the drug's potential regulatory path forward. The Company later announced on July 25, 2019, that the FDA had accepted the Resubmitted NDA. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data supporting the Resubmitted NDA for Brinavess did not minimize the significant health and safety issues observed in connection with the drug's original NDA; (ii) the foregoing substantially diminished the likelihood that the FDA would approve the Resubmitted NDA; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 6, 2019, FDA staffers reviewing Brinavess announced that they did not believe that the drug's benefits outweighed its risks. Specifically, the FDA noted that Brinavess was associated with "serious liabilities" including low blood pressure, irregular heartbeats in the lower heart chambers, and death. On this news, Correvio's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or 39.81%, to close at $1.30 per share on December 6, 2019. Then, on December 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, the Nasdaq Stock Market ("NASDAQ") suspended trading in Correvio securities in anticipation of the FDA's Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee's ("RDAC") review and discussion of the Resubmitted NDA. Finally, just before market-close that day, the RDAC voted 11-2 against approval of the Resubmitted NDA, noting that Brinavess's benefit-risk profile was not adequate to support approval. Following this news, and after Correvio shares resumed trading on the NASDAQ, Correvio's stock price fell $0.94 per share, or 67%, to close at $0.46 per share on December 11, 2019, damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] DELTA DENTAL: Faces Braunstein Suit Over Insurance Monopsony ------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. David H. Braunstein v. Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00915-DJH (W.D. Ky., Dec. 16, 2019), arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are 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. According to the complaint, Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony power through its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to: (1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy"); (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"); and (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy"). The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. These two conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy: Defendants' Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of Defendants agreeing--via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement--that the Delta Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they derive from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta Dental" brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta Dental" plans. Dr. Braunstein is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of Kentucky. He is a member of Arbor Ridge Family Dental, a dental practice located at 6402 Westwind Way, in Crestwood, Kentucky. Dr. Braunstein provided covered dental goods and services to consumers insured by Defendants pursuant to his in-network contract with Delta Dental of Kentucky. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Chad B. Holtzman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com - and - Charles J. Cooper, Esq. Harold S. Reeves, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Edward K. Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (866) 747-3905 E-mail: Kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com - and - Mark K. Gray, Esq. Matthew L. White, Esq. GRAY & WHITE 9301 Dayflower Street, Suite 300 Prospect, KY 40059 Telephone: (502) 805-1800 Facsimile: (502) 618-4059 E-mail: Mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com Mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Settles ERISA Class Action for $100 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that two health systems and a hospital agreed to pay a combined $164 million in 2019 to resolve allegations that they used a religious Employee Retirement Income Security Act exemption they weren't entitled to, according to Bloomberg Law. Dignity Health's $100 million ERISA class-action settlement was the largest settlement of the year across all industries. A judge has withheld approval of the settlement until the parties rework how attorneys' fees will be paid in the case, according to the report. The other two provider organizations that settled "church plan" lawsuits in 2019 paid much smaller amounts. St. Louis-based SSM Health and Chicago-based St. Anthony Medical Center paid $60 million and $4 million, respectively, to resolve ERISA class-action cases in 2019. Across all industries, roughly 30 ERISA class-action lawsuits were settled in 2019. Those settlements totaled $449 million, up from $291 million in 2018, according to the report. [GN] DOLLS KILL: Faces Curbelo Suit in California; May 13 Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolls Kill, Inc. The case is captioned as PUNIPUAO CURBELO, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND AGGRIEVED v. DOLLS KILL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION and BABAK FARAHI, Case No. CGC19581497 (Cal. Super., Dec. 13, 2019). A case management conference is set for May 13, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. Dolls Kill is a global online fashion brand for young people of all genders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Peter Kihiczak, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM 815 Moraga Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90049-1633 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 DR. MARTENS: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON CAMACHO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. DR. MARTENS AIRWAIR USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-07009-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille so they may be fully accessible 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 her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff alleges. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls Dr. Martens retail stores in the City and State of New York and throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., No. 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: 516 695 0052 Facsimile: 212 656 1845 E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 ELECTRIC RESEARCH: Hayes Hits Racial Discrimination in Workplace ---------------------------------------------------------------- Malcolm Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Electric Research and Manufacturing Cooperative, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01003 (W.D. Tenn., January 2, 2020), seeks redress for racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff is an African-American male and was employed by Defendant at its Dyersburg, Tennessee manufacturing facility for approximately nineteen years before his employment was terminated on February 6, 2019. Hayes qualified for Family and Medical Leave for the two days as he was absent because of a serious medical condition and under his physician's care yet he was reprimanded for being unable to continue work during a Saturday overtime. He claims that Caucasian employees who have used vacation time to substitute for absences were not reprimanded. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com ENAGIC USA: Makaron's Bid to Certify Class, for Atty. Fees Gets OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Edward Makaron v. Enagic USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E (C.D. Cal.), the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson grants these motions: -- Motion for Attorney Fees Costs Incentive Awards; and -- Motion to Certify Class for Final Approval.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark T. Cramer, Esq. BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730 Telephone: (213) 891-0700 Facsimile: (213) 896-0400 E-mail: mcramer@buchalter.com FYRE FESTIVAL: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit May Not File 3rd Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in IN RE: FYRE FESTIVAL LITIGATION, Case No. 17-cv-3296 (PKC), (S.D.N.Y.). The District Court, on July 10, 2019, dismissed the Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("SCAC") against individual defendants Jeffrey Atkins (known as Ja Rule) and Grant Margolin with prejudice, and granted Plaintiffs limited leave to replead with respect to particular allegations against defendant Atkins. The Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint alleges an overly-ambitious plan for the Fyre Festival that became a fraudulent scheme when one or more participants learned that the luxury experience they had promised was no longer feasible, but continued to market the Festival with statements they knew to be false. For each plaintiff, the moment when he or she learned of a statement, later proved to have been false and acted in reliance upon it for example, by buying a ticket may be different. The District Court rejected plaintiffs' conclusory assertions that they relied on defendants' representations about the Festival as insufficient to state a claim for fraud. In the case of Margolin, plaintiffs failed to allege a false statement with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and in the case of Atkins, plaintiffs alleged an actionable false statement, but failed to allege that they acted in reliance thereon, the District Court opined. Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the dismissal of Margolin and for leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, amending the claims against Atkins. Appended to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration are three declarations two from named plaintiffs Ritu Jutla and Daniel Jung, and one from putative class member Abbas Ali along with a declaration from plaintiffs' attorney. Even if the Court were to consider these declarations, they do not provide the particularity that the Court found lacking in plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Judge Castel says. They do not state when a particular named plaintiff relied on any individual statement by Margolin. These declarations do not present new evidence that supply the missing particulars that the Court previously identified, and thus do not provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its July 10 Order. On their motion to reconsider, plaintiffs submit emails between their counsel and Jacqueline Veit of the law firm Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP. Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Veit has been representing defendant Margolin in this action, and therefore, that Margolin is not actually a pro se party. Simply because Margolin has received assistance in drafting his papers does not mean that he is represented in this action, the Court opines. Plaintiffs further contend that two documentaries about the Festival, both of which were released in January 2019, are sources of new evidence of allegedly false statements by Margolin on which they relied. However, these documentaries are neither new evidence, nor do they supply missing particularities or correct deficiencies in the Second Amended Complaint, the Court notes. Plaintiffs instead rehash the same evidence they relied in the Second Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court denies plaintiffs' motion to reconsider on the basis of new evidence. Plaintiffs assert that dismissing Margolin as a defendant constitutes manifest injustice. No manifest injustice exists here, the Court maintains. Plaintiffs do not offer any additional facts as to Margolin that would support a fraud claim sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Therefore, plaintiffs have not alleged they would suffer any injustice. As to the Plaintiffs' proposed Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs repeat allegations that they and members of the proposed class relied on Atkins' Tweet when deciding to purchase travel tickets and make other expenditures related to the Festival, the Court notes. These allegations are conclusory and fail to remedy the shortcomings the Court's July 10 Order identified: they do not state which, if any, named plaintiff relied on Atkins' Tweet, when such reliance occurred, or any particular injury a plaintiff suffered as a result. Thus, plaintiffs' amended complaint would be subject to a motion to dismiss on substantially the same grounds as the Court previously granted dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, and granting leave to amend would be futile, the Court opines. Plaintiffs are thus denied leave to file an amended complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yfluf3zf from Leagle.com Matthew Herlihy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Anthony Lauriello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas - rrivas@zlk.com - Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Tina Glandian - tina@geragos.com - Geragos & Geragos, Apc. Sean Daly & Edward Ivey, Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy - LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Marc L. Godino - mgodino@glancylaw.com - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice. Ritu Jutla & Zenovia Pittas, Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented by Tina Glandian , Geragos & Geragos, Apc & Lori Gwen Feldman - lfeldman@zlk.com - Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Daniel Sepulveda, Consolidated Plaintiff, pro se. Andrew Petrozziello, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Grous - agrous@wilentz.com - Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A & Philip A. Tortoreti , Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071, pro hac vice. Daniel Jung, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Alarcon , GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC, Benjamin Jared Meiselas , Geragos and Geragos APC, 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-3411, pro hac vice, Lori Gwen Feldman , Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Mark J. Geragos - geragos@geragos.com - Geragos & Geragos, Apc, pro hac vice, Zack Vincent Muljat , Geragos and Geragos APC, 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-3411 & Tina Glandian , Geragos & Geragos, Apc. Jeffrey Atkins, an individual, Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas Hunter Herndon, Jr. , Silverman, Sclar, Shin & Byrne PLLC, 381 Park Avenue South Suite 1601, New York, NY, 10016 , Paul Robert Niehaus , Kirsch & Niehaus PLLC, 150 E 58th St Fl 22, New York, NY 10155-0002 & Ryan Hayden Smith , Smith Law, 3737 Glenwood Ave Ste 100, Raleigh, NC, 27612-5515 GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Drivershaft Problem ----------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a so-called "Chevy Shake" class-action lawsuit alleges GM vehicles suffer severe vibrations because the automaker uses aluminum driveshafts. The GM class action includes all consumers in the U.S., except Florida, who purchased or leased any of these GM vehicles. -- 2015-2020 Cadillac Escalade -- 2014-2019 Chevrolet Silverado -- 2015-2020 Chevrolet Suburban -- 2015-2020 Chevrolet Tahoe -- 2014-2019 GMC Sierra -- 2015-2020 GMC Yukon / Yukon XL Florida consumers are not included because a separate Chevy Shake lawsuit (Weiss v. General Motors) was denied nationwide class action certification, but the judge said the lawsuit could proceed for GM customers in Florida. According to the two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, the aluminum driveshafts cause severe vibrations that cause drivers to lose control of the vehicles. The plaintiffs claim the problem occurs while driving highway speeds, and over time the driveshaft can deteriorate and finally drop to the ground. GM allegedly sells and leases the vehicles while knowing the aluminum driveshafts will cause violent and dangerous vibrations that can send the vehicles off the roads. Instead of warning customers about the dangers, the class action alleges General Motors conceals information about the Chevy Shake to continue selling and leasing the vehicles. The automaker also has allegedly refused to recall the vehicles to replace the driveshafts and hasn't offered to reimburse customers who spent their money for repairs. One of the plaintiffs purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and claims the truck experienced the so-called Chevy Shake when about 25,000 was on the odometer. According to the plaintiff, the "center console aggressively shakes left to right such that if a cup were placed in the console without a lid, it would spill." The plaintiff also says she has paid more than $1,400 in an effort to fix the truck but the vibrations and shaking continue. The dealership allegedly finally said the vibration was normal and no repairs were needed. The class action says owners have replaced the aluminum driveshafts with custom-made steel driveshafts which completely fixed the problem. The lawsuit says it's clear GM knows about the so-called Chevy Shake because dealerships have been issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) related to the driveshafts. [GN] H&M HENNES: Not Entitled to Class Decertification of Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- BloombergLaw reports that H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. isn't entitled to decertification of a class of its retail store employees who allege that the retailer violated California wage and hour laws by requiring employees to undergo an off-the-clock security check before leaving their stores. The fact that employees without a bag may have only been subjected to a visual inspection of their person as opposed to the employees with a bag who had to wait for a search of it doesn't defeat commonality, the liability question of whether the security checks are too brief or irregular to warrant relief likewise, doesn't preclude class. [GN] HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Faces Moreau Employment Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heartland Employment Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Katheryn Sara Moreau v. Heartland Employment Services, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; HCR Manorcare Medical Services of Florida, LLC; a Florida limited liability company; HCR Manorcare, Inc., an Ohio not-for-profit corporation; Manorcare Health Services-Citrus Heights; and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2019-00271161-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Dec. 11, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. HCR ManorCare provides skilled nursing and disease management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (855) 201-5143 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 HEXO CORP: Hagens Berman Files Investor Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman on Dec. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint on behalf of investors in HEXO Corp. (HEXO) against the Company and its senior executives. The firm urges HEXO investors who have suffered significant losses to submit their losses now to learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses. Class Period: Jan. 25, 2019 - Nov. 15, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 27, 2020 Sign Up Now: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/HEXO Contact An Attorney Immediately: HEXO@hbsslaw.com 510-725-3000 Hagens Berman's HEXO Securities Class Action: The Complaint is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired HEXO common stock during the Class Period - between Jan. 25, 2019 and Nov. 15, 2019, inclusive. The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned Perez v. HEXO Corp., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10965, pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the detailed Complaint filed by Hagens Berman, Defendants misled investors throughout the Class Period by making materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) HEXO's reported inventory was misstated as the Company was failing to write down or write off obsolete product that no longer had value; (2) HEXO was engaging in channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) HEXO was cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The truth emerged through a series of disclosures occurring between Oct. 4, 2019 and Nov. 15, 2019, when the Company announced that was producing cannabis in a section of its Niagara facility that was not properly licensed with Health Canada. As a result of these disclosures, the value of HEXO stock has consistently decreased, damaging investors. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants knowingly provided false financial information to the market," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased HEXO common stock during the Class Period and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased HEXO common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than Jan. 27, 2020, which is the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is open that is 60 days after the publication date of Nov. 27, 2019. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain part of the proposed Class. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding HEXO should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email HEXO@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] HSN INC: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Jewell Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned MAURICE JEWELL, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HSN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-247-jdp. (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiff Maurice Jewell commenced the the proposed class action against defendant retailer HSN, Inc. Jewell used an HSN-branded credit card issued by Comenity Capital Bank to make purchases from HSN, which attempted to collect his unpaid balance. Jewell contends that HSN refused to comply with his requests to stop calling his mobile phone in its collection attempts, thereby violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA). HSN moves to compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration provision in the account agreement between Jewell and Comenity. HSN isn't a party to Jewell's account agreement with Comenity, which would normally prevent HSN from invoking the agreement's arbitration provision. But a non-party can sometimes invoke an arbitration provision under principles of state contract law. Because the account agreement states that it is governed by Utah law, the parties agree that Utah law should govern application of the agreement's arbitration provision. HSN contends that under Utah law, it is entitled to invoke the agreement's arbitration provision as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement or under equitable estoppel principles and that Jewell's claims fall within the provision's scope. But the court isn't persuaded by either of these theories. HSN's primary contention is that it is expressly included in the account agreement's arbitration provision as an affiliate of Comenity entitled to compel arbitration. This is really an argument that HSN is a third-party beneficiary under the express terms of the agreement, although HSN doesn't frame it in this way. HSN argues, alternatively, that it's a third-party beneficiary of the agreement because the agreement provided credit enabling Jewell to purchase goods from HSN. Under Utah law, a third party can enforce a contract as a third-party beneficiary only if the parties to the contract clearly express an intention to confer a separate and distinct benefit' on the third party. The account agreement between Jewell and Comenity states that entities entitled to compel arbitration include any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Comenity. HSN says it qualifies as an affiliate under this clause, giving it the right to compel Jewell to arbitrate his claims. The arbitration provision provides textual support for a consistent definition of affiliate throughout the agreement. The arbitration provision says that any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Comenity can compel arbitration. Here, affiliate is immediately preceded by parent and subsidiary, terms that, like the privacy statement's definition of affiliate, involve a relationship based on ownership or control. This strongly suggests that, as used in the arbitration provision, the term affiliate requires shared ownership or control. HSN contends that even if the privacy statement's definition of affiliate applies within the arbitration provision, HSN satisfies that definition. HSN offers two arguments to support this contention. First, HSN argues that (1) the privacy statement says that Comenity will share information about the cardholder's transactions and experiences with affiliates (2) Comenity shares such information with HSN; and so (3) HSN must be an affiliate of Comenity. But HSN's conclusion doesn't follow from its premises. The language HSN cites isn't a definition of affiliates, it's simply a statement of one thing Comenity does with its affiliates. In other words, Comenity shares this information with all affiliates, but it doesn't follow that all those with whom Comenity shares this information must be affiliates. Second, HSN says that it and Comenity are affiliates under the privacy statement's definition because of their common control. But the only evidence of common control that HSN identifies is that the companies share information, maintain a joint marketing fund, and regularly hold meetings and otherwise work together to market the HSN Card.This isn't evidence of common control; it shows at most a joint venture between Comenity and HSN. In sum, none of HSN's arguments establish that HSN is a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration provision because it is an affiliate of Comenity, the Court notes. The arbitration provision uses the term to mean an entity related to Comenity by shared ownership or control, and HSN doesn't share ownership or control with Comenity. HSN also argues that it's a third-party beneficiary of the account agreement because the agreement gave Jewell credit to purchase goods from HSN. This shows that HSN received some benefit from the agreement, but that doesn't automatically make HSN a third-party beneficiary. HSN is only an incidental beneficiary of the account agreement between Comenity and Jewell, not a third-party beneficiary. The benefit HSN received from the account agreement isn't separate and distinct from the parties' benefits, and it does not make HSN a third-party beneficiary of the agreement. HSN further contends that Jewell should be equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration. HSN says that this doctrine should apply because (1) Jewell purchased goods from HSN with a promise to pay for them using the HSN Card, (2) HSN gave Jewell these goods in reliance on his promise, and (3) HSN's calls to Jewell were made to collect on Jewell's promise to pay. HSN says that this promise should estop Jewell from avoiding arbitration of his claims against HSN because those claims are intertwined with his account agreement, which contains an arbitration provision. Jewell's claims against HSN doesn't depend on the account agreement in any way. He contends that HSN violated state and federal statutes by calling his cell phone without his consent, claims that he could have raised regardless of whether he had an account agreement with Comenity. Although Utah law doesn't appear to have addressed this type of estoppel, other jurisdictions have required much closer ties than these between a party's claims and a contract containing an arbitration agreement before estopping the party from avoiding arbitration. In other words, for a plaintiff's claims to rely on the contract containing the arbitration provision, the contract must form the legal basis of those claims, it is not enough that the contract is factually significant to the plaintiff's claims or has a but-for' relationship with them. HSN has only shown that the account agreement has a but-for relationship with Jewell's claims, and it hasn't shown that Utah's Supreme Court would be likely to estop Jewell from avoiding arbitration. In short, HSN has cited no authority for its view that Jewell should be estopped from avoiding arbitration under the circumstances of this case. Because Jewell's claims are based on the TCPA and the WCA, not the account agreement, HSN can't rely on equitable estoppel to compel arbitration. HSN isn't an affiliate of Comenity within the meaning of the agreement's arbitration provision, nor is it otherwise a third-party beneficiary of the account agreement, so it lacks the right to compel arbitration under the provision's terms. And Jewell's claims against HSN aren't based on his agreement with Comenity, so he isn't estopped from avoiding arbitration under the agreement. The Court will deny HSN's motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydjme9v9 from Leagle.com Maurice Jewell, Jr., On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Davidson - jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com - Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC & Matthew Curtiss Lein , Lein Law Offices, W State Road, 70 Winter, WI54896 HSN, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Blouin , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP & Jordan Vick , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448 JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Lies About Safety of Opioid, PSIC Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Public Service Insurance Company v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05904-MMB (E.D. Pa., Dec. 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendants actively misrepresented and suppressed material information about the safety and efficacy of opioid drugs, and violated various duties regarding the distribution of controlled substances, which permitted and resulted in massive diversions of prescription opiates to enter illicit distribution channels. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers' compensation insurers and self-insured employers in the United States, including territories and possessions, which pay for and provide injured workers' compensation benefits, including medical treatment, prescription, disability, and death benefits ("Workers' Compensation Payors" or the "Class"). The Defendants are Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson, Inc.; Noramco, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen; Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Allergan PLC; Actavis Kadian LLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions, Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. d/b/a Endo Generic Products; Endo International plc; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. d/b/a Par Pharmaceutical; Richard S. Sackler; Jonathan D. Sackler; Mortimer D.A. Sackler; Kathe A. Sackler; Ilene Sackler Lefcourt; Beverly Sackler; Theresa Sackler; David A. Sackler; Trust for the Benefit of Members of the Raymond Sackler Family; The P.F. Laboratories, Inc.; Stuart D. Baker; American Academy of Pain Medicine, Inc.; American Geriatrics Society; American Pain Society, Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; Bellco Drug Corp.; Cardinal Health, Inc.; Kinray, LLC; McKesson Corporation; Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc.; Bellco Drug Corp.; Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc.; Walgreens Co.; and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.. According the complaint, the Defendants, individually and in concert, did their fraudulent scheme to increase the market for opioid pain medications and to in turn garner tremendous profits, returns on investments and compensation. Central to the Defendants' fraudulent scheme, which resulted in ultimately generating what public health authorities have declared to be a national opioid medication epidemic or crisis, was that third-party payors, such as the Plaintiff, would pay for these addictive drugs where licensed prescribers wrote a patient a prescription regardless of what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") actually approved them for, which was very limited. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have and continue to conduct themselves maliciously by further failing to take measures to fully arrest, alleviate and abate the consequences of their tortious acts and omissions, which continue to cause harm to injured workers who have been prescribed opioid drugs and Defendants thereby continue to cause harm to Workers' Compensation Payors. PSIC is a property/casualty insurance company incorporated under the laws of Illinois and headquartered in New York. The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing opioids, nationally, specifically to claimants of Workers' Compensation Payors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stewart L. Cohen, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq. Eric S. Pasternack, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-567-3500 E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com mcoren@cprlaw.com epasternack@cprlaw.com - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: 713-659-5200 E-mail: WML@LanierlawFirm.com JD EARL WATERWORKS: Johnson Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JD Earl Waterworks, LLC and Brad M. Earl, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00002 (S.D. Tex., January 2, 2020), seeks all available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Waterworks is a general services contractor managed by Brad Earl, where Johnson worked in plumbing and general labor. Johnson claims to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was denied overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Carrillo Suit Challenges Improper Wage Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- YELENA CARRILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Case No. 161965/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 11, 2019), accuses the Defendant of engaging in illegal and improper wage practices in violation of the New York Labor Law. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid employees, who worked at branch locations (Hourly Employees) employed by JPMorgan Chase. The Plaintiff contends that she and other Class Members have sustained similar types of damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with the NYLL. According to the complaint, the illegal practices include requiring Hourly Employees to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; requiring Hourly Employees to perform work without compensation outside of their scheduled shift; failing to pay Hourly Employees at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; and failing to provide accurate wage statements. Yelena Carrillo resides in New York County, New York, and was a covered, non-exempt employee throughout her entire employment with the Defendant. JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THLE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625-0105 JUUL LABS: Flores Suit Removed to Northern District of Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Michelle Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUUL Labs, Inc., Case No. 2019CH12935, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 13, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-08176 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis. The suit demands of $75,000 in damages alleging violation of fraud-related laws. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haley Renee Jenkins, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: hjenkins@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Renee Deborah Smith, Esq. Christina E. Sharkey, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: rdsmith@kirkland.com christina.sharkey@kirkland.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Pels' Penafiel Water Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JOHN PELS, Plaintiff, v. KEURIG DR. PEPPER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03052-SI. (N.D. Cal.). Defendant Keurig owns a variety of beverage families, including Peñafiel water, which is advertised and labeled as mineral spring water, the product at issue in this case. Plaintiff John Pels filed an amended class action complaint seeking to represent all United States consumers who purchased any Peñafiel beverage that exceeded permitted arsenic levels within the applicable statutes of limitations. The complaint alleges five claims: (1) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (2) California's Unfair Competition Law's ("UCL") Unlawful Prong, (3) California's UCL's Unfair Prong, (4) California's False Advertising Law (FAL), and (5) unjust enrichment. The first four claims are limited to a class of California consumers while the fifth claim encompasses a nationwide class. The complaint details a variety of health issues associated with arsenic consumption but does not allege plaintiff or class members suffered any health issues after consuming Peñafiel Water. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including (1) that plaintiff lacks Article III standing, and (2) that plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court finds that the amended complaint does not sufficiently allege facts to establish standing to bring this suit, and therefore finds it unnecessary discuss defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards define bottled water as water with no added ingredients. Keurig argues that these FDA standards do not apply to Peñafiel water because Peñafiel contains carbon dioxide, i.e. an ingredient, and urges the Court to dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice. In response, plaintiff cites FDA guidance from 1995 interpreting 21 C.F.R. Section 165.110. The guidance concludes that all bottled water described by a standard of identity such as spring water or mineral water is governed by Section 165.110, even if other terms are included, i.e., carbonated mineral spring water. The Court finds Section 165 genuinely ambiguous and applies to Peñafiel water. The statute describes bottled water as well as providing specific definitions of mineral water and spring water. Since the statute itself is ambiguous as to how the definition of mineral water or spring water is impacted by the addition of carbonation, this guidance is both persuasive and helpful. As such, the statute clearly does apply to the Peñafiel mineral spring water. Moreover, Keurig argues that plaintiff has failed to plead particularized injury in two ways: (1) plaintiff fails to allege he tested the Peñafiel water he purchased for arsenic relying instead on Consumer Reports' and Keurig's testing, and (2) plaintiff fails to plead the Peñafiel water he purchased contained violative levels of arsenic. Defendant's first argument fails, the Court opines. However, plaintiff has failed to plead a particularized injury by failing to plead the water he purchased contained violative arsenic levels. In his opposition, plaintiff argues plaintiff has alleged that all Peñafiel mineral spring water during the Class Period was contaminated with arsenic because all Peñafiel water comes from the same source. The Court therefore dismisses the amended complaint, without prejudice, for lack of standing for failure to plead a particularized injury. In the present case, plaintiff alleges he will resume purchasing the products in the future if Keurig adheres to proper standards and therefore falls into the second category -- seeking injunctive relief out of fear that defendant will falsely label Peñafiel in the future. However, defendant is no longer selling Peñafiel water in the United States. Therefore, there is no injunctive relief to be had, the Court notes. For the reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court grants the motion to dismiss for lack of standing without prejudice. Further, the Court grants the motion to dismiss plaintiff's request for injunctive relief with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yesl5s5g from Leagle.com John Pels, on beahlf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. Paskowitz - lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com - Paskowitz Law Firm PC, pro hac vice, Noah M. Schubert - nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com - Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Robert C. Schubert - rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com - Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Roy L. Jacobs , Roy Jacobs and Associates, Willem F. Jonckheer - wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com - Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP & David Nathan Lake - david@lakelawpc.com - Law Offices of David N. Lake. Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by David T. Biderman – Dbidermn@perkinscoie.com Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Elizabeth Watts Staniar- LStaniar@perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Christian Sipos -CSipos@perkinscoie.com - & Jasmine Wei-Ming Wetherell - jwetherell@perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie LLP. KUDULIS REISINGER: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Luca ------------------------------------------------------------- John Luca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kudulis, Reisinger and Price, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60004 (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Kudulis, Reisinger and Price, LLC is a law firm engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. It attempted to collect a debt owed by Luca by collection letter. Luca claims that Defendant has never registered, or otherwise been licensed, to collect consumer debts from Florida consumers and does not fall within any of the exemptions, thus cannot legally collect, or attempt to collect any consumer debts. [BN] American Directions is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com LANDS' END: Delta Air Lines Workers Claim Uniforms Make Them Sick ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Gibson, writing for CBS News, reports that getting dressed for work is literally making some Delta Air Lines employees sick, claims a class-action lawsuit against Lands' End, the maker of uniforms worn by some 64,000 Delta workers. The suit, filed in the first week of January 2020 in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of a ticket agent, 11 flight attendants, and other Delta workers, contends they developed health issues including difficulty breathing, fatigue and rashes after the carrier introduced the "Passport Plum" uniforms last year. The litigation is not the first centering on Delta's outfit. It follows a proposed class-action filed against Lands' End in May 2019 by two Delta flight attendants, who also alleged that chemicals used to make the uniform material waterproof, anti-static, deodorizing and wrinkle- and stain-resistant were causing allergic and other reactions. At that time, Delta told media outlets that "although Delta and Lands' End conducted in-depth testing during every step of development, a small number of employees have reported skin irritations." "Our top priority continues to be the safety of our employees, which is why we invested in a rigorous toxicology study to determine if there was a universal scientific issue with the uniform," a Delta spokesperson said in an email. "The results of the study confirm our uniforms meet the highest textile standards - OEKO-TEX - with the exception of the optional flight attendant apron, which we removed from the collection." Lands' End does not comment on pending litigation, a spokesperson for the retailer told CBS MoneyWatch by email. Delta isn't the only airline with flight attendants claiming that their uniforms caused health issues. American Airlines employees sued uniform maker Twin Hill in 2018 over allegations that its synthetic uniforms contained chemicals that were causing health problems for flight attendants and pilots. Twin Hill dismissed the claims as "without merit." Similar complaints occurred at Alaska Airlines after its workers were issued new uniforms in late 2010 and early 2011 made by Twin Hill. The company and airline recalled the uniforms in 2014 but a lawsuit against the company failed, with a court finding no evidence the uniforms caused any health problems. [GN] LAZER SPOT: Boyd Suit Removed From Circuit Court to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as James Boyd, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lazer Spot, Inc., Case No. 2019CH12511, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 13, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-08173 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan H. Lefkow. Lazer Spot provides yard management services. The Company offers spotting, shuttling, trailer rentals, gate personnel staffing, and computerized yard management, and training services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Megan Shannon, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric L. Samore, Esq. John C. Ochoa, Esq. SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC (CHGO) 150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 894-3200 E-mail: esamore@salawus.com jochoa@salawus.com LIFELABS: Faces $1.13-Bil. Data Breach Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Cillian O'Brien, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that a proposed $1.13 billion class action lawsuit against medical services company LifeLabs aims to get "compensation and punish the business," according to a Toronto lawyer. Hackers assessed the personal information of up to 15 million Canadian LifeLabs customers, mostly in Ontario and British Columbia, before LifeLabs says it paid a ransom to get the data back. A statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court on Dec. 27 accuses LifeLabs of negligence, breach of contract and violating their customers' confidence as well as privacy and consumer protection laws. "It's mainly about trying to get some compensation, but also about punishing the company," lawyer Ari Singer told CTV's Your Morning. "When you're dealing with a large scale attack and claim like this, the individual damages might not be so high, but they add up over a long period. "It's a really scary time and it's actually a big problem for a lot of companies. We're not nearly as secure as we'd like to think we are. And they have a lot of our data." The compromised database included health card numbers, names, email addresses, logins, passwords and dates of birth, but it was unclear how many files were accessed. The lab results of 85,000 customers in Ontario were also obtained by the hackers, the company said. "It is a lesson and it's a big issue in the insurance and risk industries," Singer said. "There are certain standards that exist because of privacy legislation, but a lot of it isn't very concrete." LifeLabs chief executive Charles Brown apologized for the breach earlier in December. "Insurance companies are getting into the cyber industry in much greater detail," Singer said. "We're definitely in a learning stage right now, which is very scary because it is a lot of information." Several dedicated LifeLabs customer phone lines -- 1-800-431-7206 (British Columbia), 1-877-849-3637 (Ontario) and 1-888-918-0467 -- have been set up for people who want further information. The company is also offering 12 months of "protection that includes dark web monitoring and identity theft insurance" through TransUnion. Lifelabs is owned by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, one of the biggest pension funds in Canada with $92 billion in assets. - With files from The Canadian Press [GN] LOUISIANA: Court OKs $256K Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Romain Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reason granting Plaintiffs' Motion on Quantum of Attorneys' Fees in the case captioned LISA ROMAIN, ET AL. v. SUZY SONNIER, in her official capacity as Secretary of Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services, SECTION: "J" (1), Civil Action No. 15-06942. (E.D. La.). All Plaintiffs are Louisiana residents who are eligible for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits so long as Louisiana applies for a SNAP "work requirement" waiver from the federal government. In September 2015 however, the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services informed Plaintiffs that Louisiana, under the guidance of then Governor Bobby Jindal, would not be seeking a work requirement waiver for 2016. On December 18, 2015, Plaintiffs sued in attempt to prevent Louisiana from terminating their SNAP benefits by failing to file the work requirement waiver. On December 21, 2015, Governor-Elect John Bel Edwards wrote a letter to the federal government stating his intention to reverse Governor Jindal's decision by applying for the work requirement waiver as soon as he took office on January 11, 2016. Considering Governor-Elect Edwards' intentions, Plaintiffs entered into a Settlement Order with the Department that contained three specific orders affecting the relationship between the parties. If the waiver was granted and the Defendant complied with all three orders, then Plaintiffs' complaint would be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed their Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs, believing the Settlement Order was sufficient to make them the prevailing party. The district judge then assigned to the case denied the motion, stating that Plaintiffs were not a prevailing party within the meaning of Sec. 1988. Subsequently, Plaintiffs appealed the decision and the Fifth Circuit overturned, holding that Plaintiffs were the Prevailing Party due to the Settlement Order. On remand, the case was transferred to Judge Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana for the first time. The sole remaining issue before the Court on remand was whether there exists any "special circumstances" that would render awarding attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs under Sec. 1988 unjust. On October 2, 2019, the Court issued an Order and Reasons holding that there existed no special circumstances rendering an award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs unjust. The final issue before the Court is a determination of the precise quantum of fees Plaintiffs are entitled to. Plaintiffs have requested a total of $258,684.72, representing $254,237.00 in attorneys' fees and $4,447.72 in costs. This total reflects work done by four different legal representatives. During the initial stage of the class-action and post-remand proceedings, Plaintiffs were represented by William Quigley, Sima Atri, and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice ("NCLEJ"). Attorneys Greg Bass, Marc Cohan, Mary Mannix, Fran Fajana, Leah Lotto, and Karina Tefft performed the work attributable to NCLEJ. At the appellate stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs were represented by the law firm of Quinn Emanuel. Attorneys Jennifer Selendy, Charles Eskridge, Ellyde Thompson, and Jonathan Sink performed the work attributable to Quinn Emanuel. In sum, Plaintiffs request 777.15 hours of attorneys' fees. Having reviewed the applicable billing records, the Court finds that the records kept by counsel in the case are sufficiently clear and detailed to allow for adequate review, and that the hours expended are reasonable under the facts of the case, albeit with one minor exception on Mr. Bass. Upon review, the Court will reduce Mr. Bass's requested hours by six. The Court also finds that taken as a whole the requested rates are reasonable, although at the higher end of the prevailing market rates. The final lodestar figure, accounting for the six-hour reduction in Mr. Bass's expended hours, is $252,077. In the present case, after careful consideration of each of the Johnson factors, the Court finds there is no further need to adjust the lodestar figure. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th. Cir. 1974). Accordingly, Judge Barbier orders that Plaintiffs' Motion for Quantum of Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted. Defendant shall remit payment to Plaintiffs in the amount of $256,521.72, representing $252,077.00 in attorneys' fees and $4,444.72 in litigation costs. A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's November 7, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yebjet5p from Leagle.com Lisa Romain, Stacey Gibson, Joanika Davis, Schevelli Robertson, Jericho Macklin, Dameion Williams & Brian Trinchard, Plaintiffs, represented by William Patrick Quigley - quigley@loyno.edu - Loyola Law School Clinic & Mary C. Yanik , New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, 217 N Prieur St., New Orleans, LA 70112 Suzy Sonnier, in her official capacity as Secretary of Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services, Defendant, represented by Celia Marie Williams-Alexander , State of Louisiana (Dept. of Children & Family Services). LVNV FUNDING LLC: Lozano Invokes Right to Refuse to Pay Debt ------------------------------------------------------------ Janice Lozano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital Services, LP, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00011 (N.D. Ill., January 2, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. LVNV Funding and Resurgent Capital Services are debt collectors who were assigned to collect a Citi Card/Citibank credit card account obligation owed by Lozano. Lozano claims that she is exercising her right to refuse to pay the debt and to be represented by the legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic's Legal Advocates for Seniors and People with Disabilities program and further collection efforts are illegal. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: (708) 974-2900 Fax: (708) 974-2907 Email: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com MADISON SECURITY: Faces Quartey Suit in New York Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madison Security Group, Inc. The case is captioned as JULIAN QUARTEY O/B/O HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MADISON SECURITY GROUP, INC., Case No. 30892/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 13, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando Tapia. Madison Security provides security services. The Company offers trained armed and unarmed guards, and other related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 400 Jericho Turnpike, Ste. 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742-4949 The Defendant is represented by: CERVINI SWANSON LLP 420 Lexington Ave., 22nd Fl New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (646) 880-8947 MATTEL INC: February 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Mattel, Inc. ("Mattel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: MAT) between October 26, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased shares of Mattel during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Mattel, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Mattel had inadequate systems of internal disclosure and financial controls; (2) Mattel would need to amend its 2018 annual report on Form 10-K to restate the Company's financial results for the third and fourth quarters of 2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on August 1, 2019, Mattel announced that it would offer $250 million of Senior Notes due 2027 (the "Note Offering"). The Company said that it would use the net proceeds from the sale of the Notes, plus cash on hand, to redeem and retire all of its 4.350% Senior Notes which would be due in 2020 and pay related prepayment premiums and transaction fees and expenses. Then, on August 8, 2019 -- the very day the Note Offering was expected to close -- Mattel shocked investors when it announced that a whistleblower letter had been sent to the Company's outside auditors alleging accounting errors in past quarters and questioned whether Mattel's outside auditor was sufficiently independent. As a result, the Company announced that it was terminating the Senior Note Offering subject to the results of an internal investigation. On this news, shares of Mattel fell over 15%, closing at $11.31 per share on August 9, 2019, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky Timothy J. MacFall (888) 969-4242 (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 info@rl-legal.com http://www.rigrodskylong.com [GN] MEI HAGALIL: Barnea Jaffa Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Amichay Tessler, Esq. -- atessler@barlaw.co.il -- and Eyal Nachshon, Esq. --enachshon@barlaw.co.il -- of Barnea Jaffa Lande & Co., in an article for JDSupra, report that it is not every day a judgment on class action suits is handed down by an extended panel of Supreme Court justices. And yet, in December 2019, an expanded panel of seven Supreme Court justices, headed by the Honorable chief justice Esther Hayut, published a precedential and important decision considering the issue of whether a party seeking to file a class action suit against a government agency must send a demand letter to the agency in advance of filing. The answer to this question carries much weight in all aspects of the conditions for filing class action suits against private businesses as well, such as class action suits in consumer matters, causes of action flowing from possession of securities, and a variety of other issues. In its judgement, the Supreme Court offered a surprising answer, which, when correctly raised and argued before legal tribunals, may present real change for businesses wishing to defend themselves against class action suits. Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of class action suits filed in Israel, with about 1500 applications for certifications of such suits filed annually. In comparison, in the entire United States, about 3000 class actions suits are filed a year. Studies reveal that about 60% of the class action suits filed in Israel end with the plaintiff Voluntary dismissal from or abandoning the suit. Thus, it can be concluded that many frivolous class action suits are filed in Israel, and the cost of handling them is high for businesses. In effect, these suits usually reflect an attempt by plaintiffs to unlawfully enrich themselves, without effort or cause. Against this background, in the absence of any explicit provision on the matter in Israeli law, the courts have deliberated the issue of whether it is proper and appropriate to impose a positive duty on a party seeking to file a class action suit to reach out to the business before filing the suit in order to present its claims and receive a response. Such a procedure of advanced communication may render a signification portion of class action suits moot, mostly those where the plaintiff lacks information and where there is no real cause for filing. This procedure may even facilitate negotiations between the parties in a way that leads to conserving judicial resources. The case law on this issue developed out of a class action suit filed against the water and sewer corporation "Mei HaGalil" over unlawful interest charges. Once the class action suit was filed, the water corporation stopped the unlawful charges (in a process called "ceasing," which is particular to government authorities) and the parties remained in dispute over the amount of recovery and attorneys' fees to be granted to the lead plaintiff and his attorneys. The dispute focused on the fact that the lead plaintiff did not first reach out to the water corporation prior to filing the class action suit. A district court held that failure to reach out in advance should not bar a class action suit. The decision was challenged in appeal. The Supreme Court ruled (by a panel of three justices) that when a class action suit is filed against a government agency, there is a duty to reach out in advance to the agency. The decision did not explicitly address class action suits against private businesses, but it did note that it is possible, under certain circumstances, that failure to send a demand letter in advance will be considered a violation of the duties imposed upon a lead plaintiff and his attorneys. Since the decision was related to a breadth of issues in Israeli law, the Supreme Court held a rare additional hearing on the matter with an extended panel of seven justices. Its judgement, which as noted above was published on December 17, 2019, determines that there is no duty to reach out to the administrative agency in advance. That being said, and here is our main point, Honorable President Esther Hayut's judgment did expand the potential implications of the failure to contact in advance in all class action proceedings. It was held that though there is no duty to make a prior communication, courts possess wide discretion on the issue of whether there should have been prior communication under the circumstances of the case before them, and that in appropriate cases the plaintiff or its attorney may have bad faith attributed to it for failure to reach out in advance. We believe this statement, which was noted in the judgement's operative section as well, may be used as the basis for an argument by class action defendants, including businesses and state agencies, that in appropriate cases the class action suit must be dismissed because there was no prior communication, if only for the bad faith on the part of the lead plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney and their inability to fairly represent the class. Of course, such determination as to the bad faith of the initiators of the proceeding may have implications on the lowering of the attorneys' fees and the recovery granted them, even in proceedings later found to be justified. Therefore, even if there is no categorical duty of advanced communication, in appropriate cases, businesses may have an additional meaningful defense to defeat meritless and extortionist class action suits filed rashly and without prior communication to the defendant corporation. As for cases where there was prior communication, the judgement offered several guideposts on private corporations' ability to negotiate with potential lead plaintiffs even before a suit is filed. [GN] MYLAN NV: Faces Brody Securities Suit Over Drop of Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BRODY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MYLAN N.V., HEATHER BRESCH, KENNETH S. PARK and RAJIV MALIK, Case No. 2:19-cv-01620-MRH (W.D. Pa., Dec. 16, 2019), is brought on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Mylan publicly traded securities between May 9, 2018, and May 6, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 7, 2019, before the market opened, Mylan issued a press release, announcing the Company's financial and operating results for the first fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019 (Q1 2019 Press Release). Mylan stated in relevant part: North America segment net sales of $922.9 million, down 6% on an actual and constant currency basis, primarily driven by changes in the competitive environment and the impact of the Morgantown plant remediation activities. On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined $6.73 from a close on May 6, 2019, of $28.26 per share of Mylan common stock, to a close on May 7, 2019, of $21.53 per share of Mylan common stock, a drop of approximately 23.81 percent. Following the news, RBC Capital Markets cut its price target from $45 to $26 and released a research report entitled "Investor frustration justified and change is needed" stating that "management challenges forecasting the business, delays in responding to industry change and governance frustrations" were the reasons for the sell-off. The Plaintiff contends that during the Class Period, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the Company's stock price and operated as a fraud or deceit on acquirers of the Company's common stock. When the truth about Mylan's misconduct and its lack of operational and financial controls was revealed, the value of the Company's common stock declined precipitously as the prior artificial inflation no longer propped up its stock price, Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff alleges that the decline in Mylan's common stock price was a direct result of the nature and extent of the Defendants' fraud finally being revealed to investors and the market. The timing and magnitude of the common stock price decline negates any inference that the loss suffered by him and other members of the Class was caused by changed market conditions, macroeconomic or industry factors or Company-specific facts unrelated to the Defendants' fraudulent conduct. The economic loss, i.e., damages, suffered by the Plaintiff and other Class members was a direct result of Defendants' fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price and the subsequent significant decline in the value of the Company's share, price when the Defendants' prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct was revealed, the lawsuit says. Daniel Brody purchased Mylan securities during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices, and has been damaged thereby. Mylan is a Dutch company with its global headquarters located in Pennsylvania, United States. Mylan began in 1961 as a privately-owned distributor for pharmacies and doctors. In 1965, Mylan relocated to Pennsylvania and in 1973, Mylan became publicly traded. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent A. Coppola, Esq. PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, LLC 513 Court Place Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8844 Facsimile: (412) 281-4740 E-mail: vcoppola@pribanic.com - and - Vincent A. Coppola, Esq. Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail:ek@zlk.com NET 1 UEPS: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 3, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: UEPS) investors who purchased securities between September 12, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On November 8, 2018, after the market close, UEPS disclosed that the Company's consolidated financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2018 should no longer be relied upon, and indicated that they would be restated. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.16 per share, or more than 30%, to close at $4.84 per share on November 9, 2018. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; (2) that the Company had misclassified its investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited; (3) that the Company's financial statements for the fiscal year 2018 were overstating its income; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired UEPS securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 3, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, Esq. Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com [GN] NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Must Face Steering Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Chasidy Rae Sisk, writing for Autobody News, reports that the Superior Court in Union County, NJ, denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance (NJM) in relation to a class-action lawsuit filed in June 2019 alleging steering-related violations against non-DRP collision repair facilities. The lawsuit is being led by Sam Mikhail on behalf of Quality Auto Painting Center d/b/a Prestige Auto Body (now dissolved) and BMR Automotive Service, Inc. d/b/a Robbie's Automotive & Collision Specialists. The decision means the lawsuit will proceed with NJM facing accusations on a number of offenses, including injurious falsehood and tortious interference with prospective business advantage, as well as violations of the NJ Antitrust Act, NJ's Consumer Fraud Act, and the state's Civil RICO Act. Plaintiffs are seeking class-action status that would include all shops not on NJM's DRP who fixed, or attempted to fix, a vehicle insured by NJM in the past six years and who witnessed the insurer's refusal to negotiate in good faith, attempts to steer an insured, or misrepresentations of the shop's price or quality. Working on behalf of themselves and the class-action members, the plaintiffs are in pursuit of actual/punitive/treble damages as well as interest, lawsuit costs, attorney fees, and "such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper." They are also requesting injunctive relief to prevent the insurer from committing these alleged "unlawful acts" in the future. In addition to denying allegations, NJM has offered the defense that the case doesn't merit class-action status. In a statement following the court's decision, the insurer said, "NJM does not ordinarily comment on pending litigation; however, the plaintiffs' accusations are baseless, and will be vigorously defended." Offering no opinion on either party's argument on Nov. 22, Union County Superior Court Judge Alan Lesnewich simply rejected NJM's Motion of Dismiss, writing that the decision was made after "the Court having considered the papers submitted, opposition having been filed, Oral Argument having taken place on Nov. 22, 2019 for the reasons set forth on the record on Nov. 22, 2019, and for good cause shown." [GN] NYS THRUWAY: Donohue Renews Bid to Certify 3 Classes of Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated lawsuits styled Danny Donohue, et al. v. Thomas J. Madison, Jr., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00918-FJS-CFH (Lead Case); Danny Donohue, et al. v. Thomas J. Madison, Jr., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0920 (FJS/CFH); and NYS Thruway Authority Local 72, et al. v. NYS Thruway Authority, et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-1043 (FJS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs filed their renewed and amended joint motion for class certification. Pursuant to the Court's Notice dated December 4, 2019, and FRCP 23 and Local Rules 7.1 and 23.2, the Plaintiffs in the consolidated actions renew and amend the Joint Motion seeking to certify these actions as class actions, and to certify these classes: 1. The "New York State Thruway Employees Local 72 Class" (hereinafter "Teamsters Local 72 Class")--All individuals who: a. were employees of the New York State Thruway Authority (hereinafter "the Authority") as of April 3, 2013; b. were union members represented by the New York State Thruway Employees Local 72 (hereinafter "Teamsters Local 72") as of April 3, 2013; c. who were adversely affected by the terminations implemented by the defendant as alleged in the Complaint; and d. whose employment with the Authority was terminated, or who were bumped, demoted or transferred to different positions or work locations, or who were forced into retirement; 2. The "Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFLCIO Authority Class" (hereinafter "CSEA Authority Class")--All individuals who: a. were employees of the New York State Thruway Authority (hereinafter "the Authority") as of April 3, 2013; b. were union members represented by the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (hereinafter "CSEA") as of April 3, 2013; c. who were adversely affected by the terminations implemented by the defendant as alleged in the Complaint; and d. whose employment with the Authority was terminated, or who were bumped, demoted or transferred to different positions or work locations, or who were forced into retirement; and 3. The "Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFLCIO Canal Corporation Class" (hereinafter "CSEA Canal Corporation Class")--All individuals who: a. were employees of the New York State Canal Corporation (hereinafter "the Canal Corporation") as of April 3, 2013; b. were union members represented by the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (hereinafter "CSEA") as of April 3, 2013; c. who were adversely affected by the terminations implemented by the defendant as alleged in the Complaint; and d. whose employment with the Authority was terminated, or who were bumped, demoted or transferred to different positions or work locations, or who were forced into retirement. The Plaintiffs further renew their motion for an order appointing them as class representatives and appointing their respective counsel as Counsel for the respective classes/sub-classes.[CC] The Local 72 Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicole M. Rothgeb, Esq. Gregg D. Adler, Esq. LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, P.C. 557 Prospect Avenue Hartford, CT 06105-2922 Telephone: (860) 233-9821 E-mail: nmrothgeb@lapm.org gdadler@lapm.org The CSEA Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer C. Zegarelli, Esq. Aaron E. Kaplan, Esq. CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC. Box 7125, Capitol Station 143 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12224 Telephone: (518) 257-1443 E-mail: jennifer.zegarelli@cseainc.org aaron.kaplan@cseainc.org QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD) Investors Affected : February 21, 2018 - October 29, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Quad/Graphics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's book business in United States was underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company was likely to divest its book business; (3) the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to decreases in market prices; (4) to remain financially flexible while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/quad-graphics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5115&from=1 UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR) Investors Affected : all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Fintech American Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019; or (b) Fintech securities between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in UP Fintech Holding Limited. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend related to risk-averse investors in the market; (ii) Fintech was unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S. exchange; (iii) Fintech was incurring significant additional expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee compensation and benefits; (iv) all of the foregoing had led to Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and (v) as a result, the documents filed by the Company in connection with the initial public offering were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein, and the Company's Class Period statements were likewise materially false and/or misleading. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/up-fintech-holding-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=5115&from=1 Baozun Inc. (BZUN) Investors Affected : Baozun American Depository Receipts between March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Baozun Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Baozun was heavily reliant upon a single brand partner, Huawei, for the exponential service fee growth it had been reporting historically, which was in turn fueling its historical revenue growth; (b) compared to other brands Baozun had as brand partners, the Huawei work had historically included a lot of additional add-on service fees, increasing the revenue reported from Huawei vis-a-via its other brand partners; (c) Huawei, like other large brands, was actively preparing to bring its online merchandising in-house, meaning Baozun knew that it was losing a significant brand partner; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was not on track to achieve the financial results and performance Defendants claimed the Company was on track to achieve during the class period. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/baozun-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5115&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] RADIO CORP: Former Workers Awarded NT$2.3 Billion in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Flor Wang and Lin Chang-hsung, writing for Focus Taiwan, reports that the Taipei District Court on December 27 ruled in favor of former employees of Radio Corp. of America (RCA) and three of its affiliates, awarding the claimants a total of about NT$2.3 billion (NT$76.39 million) in a class action lawsuit. RCA, Thomson Consumer Electronics (Bermuda), and Technicolor SA were ordered to pay NT$2.33 billion, while General Electric Co.'s (GE) was ordered to pay NT$2.285 billion, the court ruled. However, in its ruling, the court said that if any one of the companies or a combination of some of the companies paid the NT$2.3 billion award, the other companies would not have to pay. In its statement summarizing the verdict, the court did not make clear why each company was assessed a fine individually but only one or more of the four defendants had to pay it. The 1,115 claimants, who are former employees and relatives of deceased or injured workers, were seeking compensation for health damage caused by exposure to harmful chemicals at the four companies. RCA, which was operating an electronics appliance factory in Taoyuan 1970-1992, was found liable for the illnesses, including cancer, contracted by its employees due to exposure to some 30 types of organic solvents, including the carcinogen trichloroethylene. The company was also found to have been dumping toxic waste close to its factory, contaminating the soil and underground water. RCA was acquired by GE in 1986, and that company was later acquired by Thomson and is now is called Technicolor. December 27's award of NT$2.3 billion in damages followed a Supreme Court ruling in August 2018, which ordered the four companies to pay a total of NT$564.45 million to 262 former employees and relatives of deceased workers. Another 246 plaintiffs in that same case were not granted any compensation, and their case was sent back to the High Court, where it is now awaiting trial. The ruling on December 27 by the Taipei District Court can be appealed. [GN] RAP SUCCESS: Mastro Hits Retaliation Over Discrimination Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Mastro, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. RAP Success Systems, Inc., Real Agent Pro LLC, L.A.R.E. Partners Network Inc., Isaiah Colton and John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06003 (W.D. N.Y., January 2, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages with liquidated, compensatory, punitive and treble damages, redress for failure to comply with the notice and record keeping requirements of New York labor laws, injunctive relief including treble and liquidated damages, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief for breach of contract and in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants are software companies that provide CRM software aimed at the real estate brokerage industry who jointly employed mastro as an inside sales representative. Mastro typically works from 7:30AM to 7-8 pm and on 1 or 2 Saturdays a month from 10am to2 pm, for a total for average of 62 hours a week. She claims that she wasn't paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 per week. Mastro also claims that, on the basis of her sex/pregnancy, Defendants failed to accommodate her when she underwent surgery, retaliated against her for taking medical leave, and paid her less than her male colleagues for performing the same work. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin R. Marino, Esq. J.R. Stevenson, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402 New York, New York 10038 Tel: (212) 939-7228 Fax: (212) 531-6129 Email: jmarino@stevensonmarino.com jrs@stevensonmarino.com RAUSCH STURM LLP: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Herrera --------------------------------------------------------------- Lianette Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson and Hornik LLP, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60002 (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson and Hornik LLP is a law firm engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. On August 1, 2019, it attempted to collect a debt owed by Herrera by collection letter. Herrera claims that Defendant has never registered, or otherwise been licensed, to collect consumer debts from Florida consumers and does not fall within any of the exemptions, thus cannot legally collect, or attempt to collect any consumer debts. [BN] American Directions is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com REALGY ENERGY: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Robo Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Tim Jensen, writing for Patch, reports that a Pennsylvania man filed a class action lawsuit against a West Hartford-based energy company, claiming the firm made multiple automated telemarketing calls to his cell phone despite his longtime presence on the national Do Not Call registry. James Everett Shelton filed the suit against Realgy Energy Services December 23 in United States District Court in the District of Connecticut, alleging the calls were in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a law which took effect in 1991 which prohibits companies from calling persons listed on the registry without prior written consent. Realgy, a choice energy supplier serving more than 10,000 businesses with their electric and natural gas service in six eastern states, has headquarters at 675 Oakwood Ave. in West Hartford. "Because these calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, he sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls," the lawsuit states, indicating a class action proceeding which could potentially involve thousands of potential complainants. Shelton and other potential members of the class are asking for an award of up to $500 in damages for each call made in violation of the statute. The court may award up to $1,500 if the violation was found to be "willful or knowing," according to the lawsuit. [GN] RING INC: Class Suit Claims Negligence Over Hacked Cameras ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard Koplowitz, writing for al.com, reports that a Jefferson County man who said his Ring camera was hacked and that the hacker spoke to his children as they played basketball has filed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon-owned Ring, accusing the company of negligence and invasion of privacy, along with other claims. The suit, filed December 26 in Los Angeles federal court, was brought amid a spate of incidences of Ring cameras being hacked, including an instance where a hacker allegedly harassed an 8-year-old girl in Mississippi. The suit names six other times the cameras were accessed by hackers. John Baker Orange, who was only identified in the suit as a Jefferson County resident, said in the lawsuit that a voice came through the two-way speaker system of his Ring outdoor camera as his three children -- ages 7, 9 and 10 -- were playing basketball. "An unknown person engaged with Mr. Orange's children commenting on their basketball play and encouraging them to get closer to the camera," the lawsuit alleged. Ring, which sells Wi-Fi cameras that users log into entering their email address and a password, should have required two-factor authentication -- an additional layer of security where users would have to input a pin number or extra password in order to gain access to the cameras to make them harder to hack, Orange alleged. "Although Ring is in the business of home security and was certainly aware that its Wi-Fi enabled product, was vulnerable to attack, it took no steps to 'require camera owners to use two-factor authentication, which could help prevent these types of attacks . . .,'" the lawsuit claims. "Moreover, it knew, or should have known, in an era of pervasive data breaches, that logging in with user emails instead of unique account names, and not requiring at least 2FA [two-factor authentication], put its Wi-Fi enabled product at an unreasonable risk of being compromised." Orange had a "medium-strong password" on his Ring account but did not know that two-factor authentication was available on the cameras, according to the suit. He changed his password and added the extra layer of security after the alleged hacking incident. The suit accuses Ring of negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied warranty, breach of implied contract and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law against false advertising. "As a result of defendants' negligence, plaintiff and the class members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages and injury including, but not limited to: the cost of replacement cameras; cost of additional surveillance and protective devices and services; time spent monitoring, addressing the current and future consequences of the exposure enabled by Ring; and the necessity to engage legal counsel and incur attorneys' fees, costs and expenses," the suit stated. [GN] SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Residents Can Seek Medical Monitoring ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ruled Vermont residents seeking damages for chemical contamination in groundwater in their neighborhood will be allowed to seek the costs of medical monitoring. The Bennington Banner reports the ruling by U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford on Dec. 27 means the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics can seek continued health monitoring under state law. The suit was filed in May 2016 in federal court in Rutland shortly after elevated levels of PFOA were found in about 400 wells around the former factories. Crawford had ruled in August that the lawsuit can proceed as a class action. [GN] SAKARA LIFE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sakara Life, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sakara Life, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00263 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sakara Life is an organic meal delivery and healthy living company. Their meals are nutritionally-designed and based on a whole food and plant-rich diet that includes fresh, superfood-rich, and delicious ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com SAUK VILLAGE, IL: Kempa Sues in Northern District of Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sauk Village, Illinois, et al. The case is captioned as Kempa 3105, LLC, Kempa and Associates, and Dynamic Rentals, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Sauk Village, Illinois and Illinois Home Inspections, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-08118 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 11, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah. Sauk Village is a village and a south suburb in Cook County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Richard Self, Esq. Richard Thomas Kienzler, Esq. FREEBORN & PETERS LLP 217 East Monroe Street, Suite 202 Springfield, IL 62701 Telephone: (217) 535-1060 E-mail: rself@freeborn.com rkienzler@freebornpeters.com Defendant Sauk Village, Illinois, is represented by: Michael J. McGrath, Esq. ODELSON & STERK, LTD. 3318 West 95th Street Evergreen Park, IL 60805 Telephone: (708) 424-5678 E-mail: mmcgrath@odelsonsterk.com SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Wins Prelim Approval of Bermudez Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Vince Chhabria gives preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit styled JORGE BERMUDEZ, VIRGINIA VALDEZ, and ANGELICA PEDROZO, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 521, and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Case No. 3:18-cv-04312-VC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Virginia Valdez has filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class action settlement reached with Defendants Service Employees International Union, Local 521, and County of Santa Clara, a hearing on which was held on January 9, 2020. Judge Chhabria preliminarily approves the Settlement and Settlement Agreement, together with all of its Exhibits, finding that the terms of the Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of possible approval and sufficient to warrant providing notice to the Settlement Class. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class: "All public-sector members of Local 521 from September 10, 2015 through January 9, 2020 who: 1) submitted to Defendants a written request to terminate their membership with Local 521, and thereafter continued to have union dues deducted from their paychecks based on a temporal limitation on resigning from union membership, or 2) who submitted an Employee Authorization for Payroll Deduction of Union Dues or Service Fees form with the "Service Fee" box checked, and thereafter continued to have union dues deducted from their paychecks based on Local 521's policy of not treating such forms as indicating a request to resign from union membership." The Court appoints as class representative, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Virginia Valdez. Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for settlement purposes only, the Court designates as Class Counsel the law firm of Banys, P.C. The Court appoints Local 521 as the Settlement Administrator, which shall administer the Settlement in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Order and the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the proposed Class Notice and the proposed plan of distribution of the Class Notice meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), and directs Local 521 to proceed with the notice distribution in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Any Settlement Class Members, who wishes to opt out from the Agreement must do so within 60 days of the Mailed Notice Date and in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Any Settlement Class Members who wishes to object to the Agreement must do so within 60 days of the Mailed Notice Date and in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Judge Chhabria approves the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Notice of Settlement of Class Action for exclusions from and objections to the Settlement. The Court directs that these deadlines are established by this Preliminary Approval Order: a. Mailed Notice Date: within 30 days of this Preliminary Approval Order; b. Opt-Out Deadline: 60 days after the Mailed Notice Date; c. Objection Deadline: 60 days after the Mailed Notice Date; and d. Fairness Hearing: May 21, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for final approval of the Settlement no later than 14 days before the Fairness Hearing.[CC] Plaintiff Virginia Valdez is represented by: Christopher D. Banys, Esq. Richard C. Lin, Esq. BANYS, P.C. 1030 Duane Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone: (650) 308-8505 Facsimile: (650) 353-2202 E-mail: cdb@banyspc.com rcl@banyspc.com SHAW COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Defeat Discrimination Claim --------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Smith, writing for Straight, reports that a Canadian Internet and cablevision giant has won a procedural victory in B.C. Supreme Court in a case that's brought unwanted media attention. Plaintiff Martin Halliday has alleged that Shaw Communications offered a discounted rate to customers who communicated with the company in Mandarin or Cantonese. Halliday is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. Shaw has denied the allegation and sought a judicial order to have its application heard first to dismiss the action under the court's summary-trial rule. The company also applied for a court order to protect some information from disclosure prior to the plaintiff's class-action application being heard. This month, Justice Veronica L. Jackson ruled that Shaw's applications can be heard first. According to an edited transcript of her oral reasons for judgment, which was posted on the B.C. Supreme Court website on December 27, Shaw "provided some evidence which suggests, on a preliminary basis, that it has strong arguments in support of . . . its defence to the merits of the Plaintiff's claim". "Shaw claims its reputation has been and will continue to be damaged as a result of the allegations set out in the notice of civil claim," Jackson stated. "Discrimination is not simply a civil wrong. It connotes a degree of iniquitousness not associated with a breach of contract or negligence. "Where established, discriminatory behaviour is generally viewed as being worthy of rebuke and clear denunciation," she continued. "As such, in my view the resolution of such allegations on their merits, as quickly as possible, benefits all parties and weighs in favour of hearing the Summary Trial Application first, as long as fairness of the proceeding is not compromised." The judge concluded that based upon the record before her, the plaintiff has not "attempted to move forward with great dispatch", nor has he been "stymied" by the corporation. "Rather, it appears Shaw has been the driving force behind propelling the litigation forward, albeit toward summary trial," she stated. Moreover, Jackson's ruling indicated that Shaw Communications and Shaw Cablesystems G.P. have "no interest" in settling the case. "Shaw's view is that the particular nature of the allegations--namely a discriminatory pricing scheme--is sufficiently serious to make it necessary to address the allegations on their merits," the judge stated. Halliday's lawyer, Martin Sheard, Esq., told CTV News last year that there's documentary evidence supporting another claim by a former Shaw employee, Kwok Bo Daisy Halliday, that Shaw offered preferential treatment to Mandarin and Cantonese speakers. Sheard also alleged at that time that Shaw's conduct violated the provincial Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and other laws. None of these allegations have been proven in court. [GN] STEWART'S SHOPS: Six-Year Class Action Settled for $675K -------------------------------------------------------- Brian Kelly, writing for NNY360, reports that Stewart's Shops Inc. is poised to settle a six-year-long class-action lawsuit initiated by a former Lewis County woman who worked at the convenience store chain's West Carthage location. Holly Gregory, who now lives in Florida, filed suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in January 2014 in U.S. District Court, Syracuse, claiming the Saratoga Springs-based chain systematically failed to pay its workforce for all hours worked, allegedly resulting in employees being paid below state and federal minimum wage. The suit alleged that Stewart's did not pay employees overtime at the rate of tim-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act; that workers were unable to take 20 minute meal breaks during shifts of six hours or more; and workers were required to attend store meetings even when not scheduled to work and were not compensated for a minimum of three hours worked, as required by state law. Throughout the litigation, Stewart's denied the claims and maintained that it has consistently paid its employees in full compliance with state and federal law. In addition to Ms. Gregory, two other employees, Astrid Halten and Matthew Potter, were added to the lawsuit as named plaintiffs in April 2014. In September 2016, a judge allowed the case to proceed as a class action regarding the overtime compensation and call-in claims, but dismissed the meal break claims. According to court documents, Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter approved a preliminary settlement in the case this past July 24 and the matter is slated to go before Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on Jan. 2 for final approval. Both sides have indicated they are in agreement with the settlement. In all, about 34,000 current or former Stewart's employees were offered the opportunity to opt into the suit, although just 146 chose to do so, court documents indicate. According to court documents, Stewart's has agreed to pay $675,000 to settle the action, of which 33 percent, or $225,000, will go to the plaintiff's attorneys, E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, Troy. The firm took the case on a contingency basis, expending about 1,350 billable hours on the matter and fronting many other expenses associated with the litigation. The three named plaintiffs -- Ms. Gregory, Ms. Halten and Mr. Potter -- will receive $5,000 each in addition to the class-action payout, owing to the time the trio dedicated to the case and the risk they took in terms of potential future employment opportunities by identifying themselves as having brought a suit against their employer. The remaining opt-in members will receive a minimum of $200, according to documents. [GN] TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Feb. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Dec. 31 disclosed that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Trulieve Cannabis Corp. ("Trulieve" or the "Company") (OTCQX: TCNNF) between September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased TCNNF securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Trulieve Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its biological assets; (2) therefore, Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3) Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party real estate sale with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 17, 2019, during market hours, Grizzly Research published a report explaining that Trulieve had failed to disclose: (i) real estate transactions with insiders; (ii) that, rather than high-quality indoor production, the vast majority of the Company's marijuana was produced in low quality "hoop houses"; and (iii) that the Company's markup on biological assets was excessive and unreasonable. On this news, shares of Trulieve fell $1.51 per share or over 12.6% to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, damaging investors. If you purchased Trulieve securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/trulievecannabiscorp-tcnnf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-236/apply/ contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2019 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Rosen Law Probing Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Trulieve Cannabis Corp. (OTC: TCNNF) resulting from allegations that Trulieve may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On December 17, 2019, Grizzly Research issued an article reporting that most of the Company's cultivation space comes from "hoop houses that produce low quality output," that there were extensive ties between Trulieve and ongoing FBI investigations into corruption, that the Company's initial license approval "stinks of corruption," and that the Company engaged in several undisclosed related party transactions. As a result of this news, Trulieve's share price fell $1.51 or over 12.6% to close at $10.40 on December 17, 2019. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Trulieve investors. If you purchased shares of Trulieve please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1745.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] UNITED STATES: Discovery Stayed in Firearms Suit ------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Reona Daly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery in the case captioned JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 19-cv-6-SMY-RJD. (S.D. Ill.) Under the proposed class action, Plaintiff challenges a Final Rule issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and its component, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") concerning the classification of "bump stocks" as machine guns under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922. Generally, Plaintiff alleges 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(o) does not prohibit an initial registration or amnesty period for newly regulated bump devices, despite a finding to the contrary by the DOJ and ATF. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law in finding they lack authority to institute an amnesty or initial registration period, and such an interpretation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(o) is unconstitutional. Defendants contend discovery in the matter should be stayed as to Counts I through V as said claims are brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Defendants further contend discovery should be stayed as to Count VI in the interests of judicial economy and the speedy and inexpensive resolution of the action. Plaintiff objects. Generally, discovery is not appropriate for claims brought under the APA since review of an agency's decision is confined to the administrative record. An exception exists if a plaintiff seeking discovery can make a significant showing that it will find material in the agency's possession indicative of bad faith or an incomplete record. In the present case, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the record is incomplete or there has been bad faith, the Court notes. Rather, Plaintiff relies on his contention that the administrative record cannot address the constitutional claims set forth in the complaint. The Court disagrees. Counts I through V clearly address the DOJ's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o). Further, these counts seek relief under the APA . The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of the Defendants' decisions and actions, but the APA contemplates such challenges, providing that a reviewing court must set aside and hold unlawful any agency action, finding, or conclusion it finds to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law or contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity. Because Counts I through V seek relief under the APA, discovery must be limited to the administrative record absent a showing of bad faith or incompleteness, the Court opines. In Count VI, Plaintiff asks for compensation on behalf of a purported class for a taking of private property if the Court should find that the DOJ and/or ATF has the authority to allow for an amnesty registration period. Plaintiff's allegations in Count VI necessarily rely on findings related to Counts I through V. Because discovery concerning Count VI is likely to be expansive and expensive, and noting that the issues in Count VI may be resolved with a decision as to Counts I through V, the Court finds a stay of discovery warranted at this time. The Court accordingly grants Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery as to all counts. Discovery as to Counts I through V is limited to the administrative record. The Order, however, does not limit Plaintiff's ability to seek additional discovery if he can make a significant showing that the record is incomplete or there is material indicative of bad faith. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye4x5h94 from Leagle.com John Doe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated., Plaintiff, represented by Peter J. Maag , Maag Law Firm, LLC & Thomas G. Maag , Maag Law Firm, LLC, 22 W Lorena Ave Wood River, IL, 62095-1929 Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Matthew Whitaker, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States & Thomas E. Brandon, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants, represented by Eric J. Soskin , U.S. Department of Justice & Michael Fraser Knapp , U.S. Department of Justice. UNITED STATES: Michener Moves for Certification of Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frances Michener seeks a court order under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure certifying the lawsuit entitled FRANCES MICHENER v. ANDREW M. SAUL, ET AL., Case No. 5:19-cv-04377-SVK (N.D. Cal.), as a class action. Andrew Saul is the Commissioner of Social Security. The Social Security Administration is an independent federal agency headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to certify a class as defined more particularly in the accompanying memorandum in support of the Motion; to appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; to appoint the Plaintiff as class representative; and to set a court conference at which counsel for the Parties shall address submitting a plan for providing notice to the subclasses, in the event that notice has to be provided to the subclasses. The Court will commence a hearing on May 12, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Bruce, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN BRUCE, LLC 17350 South Ridgeview Road Olathe, KS 66062 Telephone: (859) 905-9678 Facsimile: (513) 386-7311 E-mail: bruce@jonathanbrucelaw.com - and - Aaron M. Bernay, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 301 East Fourth Street Great American Tower Suite 3300 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-6831 Facsimile: (513) 651-6981 E-mail: abernay@fbtlaw.com - and - William F. Murphy, Esq. DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 397-2700 Facsimile: (415) 397-3300 E-mail: wfm@dillinghammurphy.com UNITED STATES: NS Moves to Certify Class of Indigent Detainees -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned N.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL A. HUGHES, United States Marshal, District of Columbia (Superior Court), in his official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-00101-RCL (D.D.C.), moves for an order certifying a class defined as: All indigent criminal defendants in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia: (1) who were, are, or will be detained by officers of the United States Marshals Service for suspected civil immigration violations, and (2) as to whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not effectuated a warrant of removal/deportation (a form I-205) and/or has not obtained an order of deportation or removal. The case challenges the United States Marshals Service's ("USMS" or "Marshals Service") policy of detaining people suspected of civil immigration violations in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ("Superior Court"). The Named Plaintiff N.S. was detained by a USMS officer after a judge of the Superior Court ordered the Plaintiff released on his own recognizance. Because Congress has denied officers of the Marshals Service the authority to detain people suspected of civil immigration violations, the Marshals Service arrested him in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the Plaintiff contends.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Marcus, Esq. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 824-2524 Facsimile: (202) 824-2525 E-mail: smarcus@pdsdc.org UNITED STATES: Siraj Moves for Certification of Inmates Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SHAHAHAWAR MATIN SIRAJ, SABIRHAN HASANOFF, AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Case No. 1:19-cv-03375-UNA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: -- under Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ruling this proceeding may be maintained as a class action on behalf of a class comprised of: the Plaintiffs and other person similarly situated, namely, all person who have been sentenced subject to United States Sentencing Guidelines Section 3A1.4 Terrorism Enhancement; and -- appointing an attorney of suitable experience as class counsel as required by Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs contend that class certification is required because the Class is so numerous and spread throughout the Federal Bureau of Prisons that joinder of all members is impractical. They assert that the class is composed of hundreds of inmates within the Federal Bureau of Prisons and includes dozens more persons similarly situated, who are currently facing future mis-application of this enhancement, along with future defendants, who have yet to be charged. The Plaintiffs, who are currently held at the Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville (FCI Otisville), in Otisville, New York, appear pro se.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA: B.C. Appeal Court OKs Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vancouver Sun reports that the three-member panel overturned a lower-court ruling that had tossed out an application to certify as a class action by Susan Service, who is part of a group of non-union workers classified as "management excluded employees." Service claims the University of Victoria wrongly forced a salary freeze on these employees in breach of their contract after the B.C. Finance Ministry announced in 2012 that public-sector management salaries would be frozen. She claims the university failed to give as many as 134 members the annual salary increases they were due, which also negatively impacted their pensions, in the years 2013 through 2016. Writing for the panel, Justice Susan Griffin allowed the appeal and certified the class proceeding, saying the contract is the common issue between the employees, although no court has made a decision on the main allegations in the case. The trial heard the university claimed it was following the government's direction, that it was entitled to change the terms and conditions of the contract, and that those employees accepted the change. [GN] WARNER MUSIC: Williams Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Receivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned LEONARD WILLIAMS, an individual, and THE LENNY WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, a California Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation; WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:18-cv-09691-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek certification of this class: All persons and entities in the United States, their agents, successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators who are or were parties to agreements with Warner Bros. Records, Inc. or its subsidiaries and affiliates ("Warner Records") whose contract has a California choice of law provision and either: 1. Expressly provides for royalties for digital streaming and an applicable royalty rate of 50% or more of Warner Records' net receipts; 2. Does not expressly provide for royalties for digital streaming and contains a general licensing provision at a royalty rate of 50% or more of Warner Records' net receipts; or 3. Does not expressly provide for royalties for digital streaming or a general licensing provision. The action was originally filed by Plaintiff Lenny Williams against Warner Music in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in October 2018. The case was removed by Warner Music to the District Court in November 2018. Defendant Warner Music moved to dismiss the case in December 2018. In lieu of responding to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which added Plaintiff The Lenny Williams Production Company ("LWPC") and Defendant Warner Records to the action. The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC, which the parties fully briefed. On March 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss. In relevant part, the Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims against Warner Music, as well as the Plaintiffs' claims for open book account, conversion, unjust enrichment, and rescission. Thus, at this time, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Warner Records for breach of contract; fraud; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 ("UCL"); accounting; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and declaratory judgment. The Court will commence a hearing on February 24, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com - and - Neville L. Johnson, Esq. Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. Arun Dayalan, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP 439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com djohnson@jjllplaw.com arundayalan@jjllplaw.com - and - Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law WINCO FOODS: Johnson Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ALFRED JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:17-cv-02288-DOC-SHK (C.D. Cal.), moves for class certification pursuant to the Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the Plaintiff asks the Court to: 1. certify that the action is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as to these claims: (a) Violation of California Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (b) Violation of California Labor Code sections 222.5, 2802 (Failure to Pay Physical Examination Costs and Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (c) Violation of California Labor Code sections 226(a), 1174(d) and 1198 (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); (d) Violation of California Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203 (Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination); and (e) Violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; 2. certify this class: All hourly, non-exempt employees of WinCo Foods, LLC and WinCo Holdings, Inc. working in retail stores or distribution centers in the State of California who were required to undergo mandatory drug-testing after August 23, 2013 through the date of certification (hereinafter referred to as the proposed "Class Members"); 3. appoint Plaintiff Alfred Johnson as class representative; and 4. appoint Capstone Law APC as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on February 10, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Robert Drexler, Esq. Molly DeSario, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com [*] Cannabidiol Industry Expected to Face More Lawsuits in 2020 --------------------------------------------------------------- Tommy Tobin, writing for Forbes, reports that the cannabidiol (CBD) industry saw considerable growth in 2019, and the industry is expected to see further expansion over the new year. In the absence of clear federal guidance, sellers of products containing CBD, particularly those in the food and beverage space, should watch how three developments might affect their products and the industry as a whole. * Further FDA Clarification: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in November 2019 that the agency had numerous "unanswered questions and data gaps about CBD toxicity" and issued over a dozen warning letters to sellers of CBD-containing products. The FDA's updated Consumer Update declared that marketing CBD "by adding it to a food or labeling it as a dietary supplement" is illegal. In its announcement, the FDA noted that it is continuing to explore "potential pathways for various types of CBD products to be lawfully marketed" and expects to provide an update on its "progress regarding the agency's approach to these products in the coming weeks." After the agency's November announcement and warning letters, manufacturers of CBD products, particularly those in food and beverage categories, should watch how the FDA clarifies and enforces its position on CBD-containing products over the new year. * State and Local Action: Without clear federal guidelines, states have created a regulatory patchwork of often conflicting rules across the country. As one headline put it: "Headaches abound as states try to clarify [the] CBD landscape." Some states, such as Maryland, have declared it illegal to add CBD to food products. Similarly, New York City regulators have embargoed food and drink products containing CBD. Media reports note that City officials have ordered at least five restaurants to stop selling CBD-containing food and drink products and that enforcement of the embargo includes fines ranging from $200 to $650. For 2020, the industry should watch how states continue to take action in the absence of clear federal guidance. For example, New York State recently passed a new law, effective in March 2020, that establishes a regulatory framework for the sale of CBD-containing products in the state. State officials are expected to issue new regulations fleshing out the law in the coming weeks. * Class Action Litigation: Given the ambiguity around applicable rules surrounding CBD-containing products, particularly those in the food and beverage industry, private party litigation is expected to increase this year. Already several federal class action lawsuits have been lodged against manufacturers of CBD products alleging that the products are "illegal to sell" and therefore violate state consumer protection laws. While the CBD industry has expected an "avalanche" of class action cases for some time, the already-filed class action lawsuits suggest that the "CBD lawsuit floodgates are opening." Federal and state regulators are contemplating further action this year. So too are additional private party plaintiffs, who are poised to present putative class action allegations given the "language of the FDA's recent pronouncements and the widespread availability of CBD-containing products." Manufacturers of CBD-containing products, particularly those in the food and beverage space, should be aware of these developments. [GN] [^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 4 --------------------------------------------------- Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 4th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 4th. Sponsorship opportunities are currently available. Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers, consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics. For sponsorship options and details, contact Colin Post at colin@beardgroup.com Visit the conference website: http://bit.ly/2RlIHvo Past conference attendees have included professionals from these firms and universities: A.B. Data, Ltd. Aaron M. Levine & Associates Adams and Reese LLP Akin Gump Angeion Group Baker Botts LLP Ballard Spahr LLP Battea Class Action Services Bentham IMF Berger Montague Berkeley Research Group Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP Blank Rome LLP Bloomberg BNA Brian S. King PC Broadridge Financial Solutions BroadRiver Asset Management, L.P. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Burford Capital LLC Castro & Co Citi Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Columbia Law School Complex Settlements, P.C. Constantine Cannon LLP Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP Delaware Law Weekly Dentons Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Dundon Advisers LLC Edelson PC EJF Capital LLC Epiq Fagenson & Puglisi Fordham Law School FTI Consulting Garden City Group Garretson Resolution Group George Washington University Greenberg Traurig LLP Groia & Company Hagens Berman Hausfeld LLP Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Hochberg ADR Huntington Bank Ice Miller LLP John D Webb PA Johnson Fistel JTB Law Group Justice Catalyst K&H Integrity Communications Kazerouni Law Group, APC Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP King & Spalding Kinsella Media Kirkland & Ellis KPMG Kurtzman Carson Consultants Labaton Sucharow LLP Lavie Law Offices Law Offices Of Zorik Mooradian Leeds Brown Levi & Korsinsky LLP Levy Konigsberg LLP Lewis & Clark Law School Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP Liquid Claims Locke Lord LLP Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. Marron Lawyers, APC Maurice Blackburn McGuireWoods LLP Michigan Attorney General's Office Mighty MLex Market Insight Murphy, Falcon & Murphy New York Law Journal New York University Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Olumide Babalola LP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Pace University Pacer Monitor Paul Weiss Perini Capital Pomerantz LLP Postlethwaite & Netterville Proskauer Rose LLP PwC Reisman Karron Greene RG/2 Claims Administration Richman Law Group Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila Ríos Ferrer, Guillen-Llarena, Treviño y Rivera, S.C. Robins Kaplan LLP Rose Law Firm Rutgers University Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Seeger Weiss LLP Sheridan Ross P.C. Simpluris Sipree, Inc. Skadden Arps Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Stanley Law Group Susan J. Levy, Esq. The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, P.C. Therium Inc. Thompson Reuters TriState Capital Bank UBS United States District Court-Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court-Southern District of New York University of Connecticut Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Western Alliance Bank Winston & Strawn LLP Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Workman Law Firm, PC Yeshiva University Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, LLP Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Files Chapter 11 to Address Legacy Asbestos Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Paddock Enterprises, LLC, has voluntarily filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to equitably and finally resolve all of its current and future asbestos-related claims, according to parent company O-I Glass, Inc. in a press release dated January 6, 2020. Andres Lopez, CEO of O-I Glass, said, "Addressing Paddock's legacy liabilities through Chapter 11 will help enable O-I Glass to further unlock the value creation potential of this global franchise. By improving the Company's capital structure, this important step will support a number of critical strategic efforts and possibilities as O-I Glass leverages its position as the world's leading manufacturer of sustainable glass packaging." After exiting a business in 1958 that produced Kaylo, an asbestos-containing thermal insulation product, the Company has disposed of over 400,000 asbestos-related claims and incurred gross expense of approximately US$5 billion for asbestos-related costs. Lopez continued, "Paddock evaluated its options and determined that a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization was the most fair and equitable way to obtain certainty and finality in addressing its legacy asbestos-related liabilities. Pending final resolution of the Chapter 11 proceeding, all asbestos-related claims payments will be suspended." Paddock's ultimate goal in its Chapter 11 case is to confirm a plan of reorganization under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and utilize this specialized provision to establish a trust that will address all current and future asbestos-related claims. Paddock has been and remains committed to fairly and equitably compensating claimants who are ill and have legitimate exposure to the Kaylo products manufactured by its predecessor from 1948-1958. Paddock looks forward to working swiftly and constructively to confirm a plan of reorganization and is committed to emerging from bankruptcy as expediently as possible. A full-text copy of the O-I Glass, Inc.'s January 6, 2020 Press Release is available at https://is.gd/FwkIni ********* 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 ***