/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200130.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 22
Headlines
214 FRANKLIN LLC: Chavez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ACARA SOLUTIONS: Faces Nunery Employment Suit in California
AHD HOUSTON: Fails to Pay Dancers Minimum & OT Wages, Baugh Says
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Kuss Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
ASUS COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement in Class Action Over Laptops
AUTONATION INC: Pham Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BAOZUN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
BAOZUN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline
BAOZUN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline
BLUE BUFFALO CO: White Hits Excessive Carbohydrates in Dog Food
BLUELOON INC: Burokas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BOOT BARN: Faces Sleeper Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
BUSHFIRE GRILL: Settlement Hearing on Pacheco Suit Vacated
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Visser Suit
CARTER BROTHERS: $823K Deal in Gutierrez Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
CELGENE CORP: Backs Out of $55-Mil. Class Action Settlement
CHEMOURS: PFAS Water Contamination Class Action Pending
CLIENT SERVICES: Grier FDCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
CONAIR CORPORATION: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Amended Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid Issued
CORMARK SECURITIES: Ontario Class Action vs. Brokerages Certified
COX COMMUNICATIONS CA: Denied Gil Overtime, Meal Breaks
CRESCOM CORPORATION: Reaves Files Suit in South Carolina
DEL FRISCO'S: Resto Staff Files Bid for Judicial Intervention
DOLGENCORP LLC: Hall Hits Sexual Discrimination in Workplace
DUNDEE SECURITIES: Ontario Class Action vs. Brokerages Certified
EVEREST RECEIVABLE: Henderson Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
FANDUEL INC: Class Action Over Double Your Deposit Promos Fails
FANNIN & RUSK: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FENIX PARTS: Class Action Certified; $3.3MM Settlement Reached
FLASH MARKET LLC: Cashiers Seek Unpaid Overtime Premiums
FORESCOUT TECH: March 2 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Mar. 2 Deadline
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of March 2 Deadline
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action
FOUR BLR DOORS: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GILBERT ROZON: No Trial Date Yet in Assault Class Action
GREENVILLE, NC: Dismissal of Arrington Suit on Mold Incident Upheld
HAPPIEST MINDS: Sulzberg Job Discrimination Suit Dismissal Denied
HINGHAM, MA: Suit Over Speed Limits Denied Class Status
HKA ENTERPRISES: $150K Laywer Fees Awarded in Moorhead FCRA Suit
HKA ENTERPRISES: Settlement in Moorhead Suit Gets Final Court OK
IBEAT INC: Camp Drug Store Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
JA RULE: Officially Dismissed from Fyre Festival Class Action
JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Gibson Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. California
JAMES MAYER: Wins Final Approval of Latteri Suit Settlement
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $6.3M Payout in Infants' Tylenol Class Action
K&K HOLDINGS: Honeycutt Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: G.T. Files Civil Rights Class Action
LANDS' END: Employees File Class Actions Over Uniforms
LOANME INC: Steptoe & Johnson Attorneys Discuss CIPA Court Ruling
LOUISIANA: E.B. Moves to Certify Classes of Clerks & Dist. Attys.
MARRIOTT INT'L: Given More Time to Answer Amended Hall Lawsuit
MATTEL INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 24 Deadline
MERIT MEDICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action
MOWI ASA: Canada Suit Over Price Fixing Seeks Class Status
MYLAN N.V.: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
NATROL LLC: Jensen's Bid to Certify Class of Consumers Denied
NAVISTAR INC: $135M Emissions Settlement Has Interim Approval
NET 1 UEPS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
NORMAN BARWIN: Inspections of Fertility Clinic Found Problems
NOSCO INC: Faces Bishop Suit Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info
ONTEL PRODUCTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OPERA LIMITED: Faces Brown Suit Over Drop in Securities' Price
OTTO BREMER TRUST: Employees File Class Action vs. 3 Trustees
PARKOFF OPERATING: New York App. Div. Flips Dismissal of Quinn Suit
PAYLESS CAR RENTAL: Garvin Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices
PHH CORPORATION: CWELT-2008 Files Suit in S.D. Florida
POP WARNER: Summary Judgment Granted in Youth Football CTE Case
QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Bloom Sues over 57% Drop in Share Price
REALREAL INC: Klein Law Files Class Action
ROSENBLUM & BIANCO: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
SEA VIEW RESTAURANTS: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
SEATTLE CHILDREN'S: Mold Infestation in Hospital Spurs Class Suit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Readies Defense in Suit Over 'Blackfish'
SETON MEDICAL: Fifth Circuit Unravels FDCPA Class Action
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Shaulov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
SPACE COAST CREDIT: Durrant Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
SUBARU: Faces Another Class Action Over Outback Airbag Issue
SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Class Certified Under FLSA in Possi Suit
TEAM PIZZA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Bradford Says
THOR MOTOR: Hayes Seeks Certification of Two Classes Under FLSA
TOP DOG PLUMBING: Aleman-Valdivia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOTAL: Shippers Sue for Adding Fuel Surcharges to Cargo Prices
TRANSFORMATION 5701: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: March 27 Hearing on Proposed Settlement
UDELHOVEN OILFIELD: Lapikas Files FLSA Suit in Alaska
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: $1.5M Attorneys Fees in Trujillo Suit Approved
US ENERGY SOLUTIONS: Madrid Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
WALMART INC: Hester Moves to Certify Two Consumer Classes
WAWA INC: First Choice Sues Over POS Data Breach
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Woodall's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class OK'd
WESTCOURT PLACE: Strosberg Sasso Sutts Files Class Action
WILLIAMS WPC-I: Andrews Sues Over Age & Employment Discrimination
X FINANCIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
X FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action
[*] Caregivers Want Class Status in Opioid MDL
[*] Cleveland Suit for Babies With Opiods Seek Class Action Status
[*] Implementation of Calif. Arbitration Law Temporarily Blocked
[*] Title III Gift Card Litigation Expected to Continue This Year
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4
*********
214 FRANKLIN LLC: Chavez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 214 Franklin LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 214 Franklin LLC as
assignee of Franklin Guesthouse, 25 Jay Street LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00428 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Franklin Guesthouse offers luxurious lofts & suites combining
modern design with the comforts of home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
Law Offices of Mitchell Segal P.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Fax: (516) 706-6631
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
ACARA SOLUTIONS: Faces Nunery Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aleron Group Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Dewitt Nunery, on behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated and Aggrieved Plaintiffs v. Acara Solutions
Inc., a New York Corporation; Aleron Group Inc., a New York
Corporation; Does 1-100; and Siemens Mobility Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 34-2019-00271992-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 23, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Acara provides talent and recruiting solutions since 1957. Aleron
is a group of global workforce and productivity solutions
companies. Siemens Mobility offers intelligent and efficient
mobility solutions for urban, interurban and freight
transportation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carney Richard Shegerian, Esq.
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES
225 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 860-0770
Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
E-mail: cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com
AHD HOUSTON: Fails to Pay Dancers Minimum & OT Wages, Baugh Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monauzre Baugh, aka Maven, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. A. H. D. HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a CENTERFOLDS; ALI DAVARI
and HASSAN DAVARI, individuals, Case No. 4:20-cv-00291 (S.D. Tex.,
Jan. 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages
resulting from their evading the mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and illegally
absconding with the Plaintiff's tips.
The Plaintiff has been denied minimum wage payments and denied
overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the
Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors," according to the complaint. The Defendants have also
forced the Plaintiff to pay illegal kickbacks in the form of
supposed "house fees."
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages and
overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA, the
Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the Defendants' violations, the
Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members seek to recover double damages
for failure to pay minimum wage, overtime liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in 2016
until 2019.
The Defendants own and operate a strip club named CENTERFOLDS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.comd
- and -
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Kuss Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas G. Wilson grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
and Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class in the lawsuit
entitled JOSEPH KUSS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT, INC. and LINCARE
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-02348-TGW (M.D. Fla.).
The lawsuit is a proposed class action brought to resolve all
claims against the Defendants arising from an unauthorized
disclosure of private protected health information as defined by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"),
and other medical and personally identifiable information (PII).
On January 6, 2017, Defendant American HomePatient, Inc.'s (AHP)
office was burglarized. The burglars stole, among other things,
several computer hard drives (and a leaf blower). Five of the hard
drives contained unencrypted PII information of over 13,000
customers.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants improperly failed to
encrypt the PII, thereby, possibly compromising the PII and placing
their customers and patients at increased risk for identity theft.
The amended complaint, filed in November 2018, alleges negligence,
invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and the violation of the Florida Deceptive
Unfair Practices and Trade Act.
On May 10, 2019, the parties participated in a day-long mediation
conducted by Steve R. Jaffe of Upchurch Watson White & Max
Mediation Group. The parties agreed at the mediation upon the
principle terms of the settlement to compensate potential class
members for loss and/or harm due to the unauthorized disclosure of
their PII.
Under the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release (Settlement
Agreement), the settlement class is defined as:
All individuals in the United States who are current or
former patients or customers of Defendants, whose PII was
stored on the unencrypted hard drives stolen from
Defendants' Newark, Delaware location on or about January 6,
2017 and who suffered injury or harm resulting from the
dissemination of their PII.
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are:
the Judge presiding over this Litigation . . . and any
members of h[is] judicial staff, the officers and directors
of Defendants . . . class counsel . . . and persons who
timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class. . . .
The Plaintiff approximates there are 13,701 putative class
members.
The Settlement Agreement provides monetary and non-monetary
remedies to potential class members. Specifically, the monetary
benefits are:
1. Extended identity theft protection for an additional 24
months and insurance for ID theft reimbursement up to
$25,000;
2. Reimbursement of self-paid identity theft protection, up to
$150 per claimant, not to exceed $250,000 in the aggregate;
3. Payment for false or fraudulent tax returns, $350 single
payment per claimant, not to exceed $250,000 in the
aggregate;
4. Payment for IRS tax transcript requests, up to $150 per
claimant, not to exceed $150,000 in the aggregate;
5. Eligible incident claims, $250 single payment per claimant
not to exceed $150,000 in the aggregate; and
6. Out-of-Pocket losses, up to $500 per claimant, not to
exceed $200,000 in the aggregate.
Thus, under the proposed Settlement Agreement, a potential class
member may be eligible to receive up to $1,400. However, there is
cap of one million dollars on the monetary claims reimbursement
amount, which could reduce a class member's recovery in a pro rata
amount. This monetary cap excludes the cost of the identity theft
protection and attorneys' fees. Furthermore, counsel anticipate
class members will receive the full amount of monetary damages to
which they are eligible because, in their experience, the
percentage of claims submitted in these types of class actions are
generally very low. Specifically, the Plaintiff's counsel stated
that they anticipate, at most, six percent will submit claims, and
that it is highly unlikely that each claimant would be entitled to
the maximum monetary recovery.
Moreover, as indicated, the potential class members may enroll in
two years of identity theft protection at no cost to them,
regardless of the monetary cap. The Settlement Agreement also
includes implementation of enhanced security measures to prevent a
future data breach, including encryption of the PII on their
computers.
The Settlement Agreement further provides that class counsel may
seek up to $325,000 in attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
Notably, the parties did not negotiate the amount of the attorneys'
fees until the parties had agreed on the potential class members'
recovery. Furthermore, the attorneys' fee award does not reduce
the amount of compensation available to settlement class members.
Finally, the Settlement Agreement affords the representative
plaintiff a $5,000 service award. This is separate from his
alleged damages of $600.
The process of notifying potential class members would be
administered by Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., which
is a company that specializes in this process.[CC]
ASUS COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement in Class Action Over Laptops
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group announced that a proposed class action settlement has
been reached in a case entitled Carlotti, et al. v. ASUS Computer
International, et al., No. 4:18-cv-03369, filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that the ASUS Rog Strix GL502VS
and GL502VSK laptops (the "Laptops") were deceptively marketed as
powerful, portable machines ideal for gaming and video editing with
independent cooling systems to give the Laptops "stability required
for intense gaming sessions." Plaintiff alleges that the Laptops
are not suitable for their ordinary and advertised purpose because
the Laptops' batteries drain even when the Laptops are connected to
electrical outlets (the "Power Defect"). Plaintiff also alleges
that the Laptops' cooling systems are not independent because they
use one set of heatsinks to dissipate heat from both the graphics
processing unit and computational processing unit, so the Laptops
overheat, leading to physical discomfort and/or diminishing the
Laptops' performance and durability (the "Overheating Issue"). ASUS
Computer International and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. are the defendants
("Defendants") and deny any wrongdoing.
If the Settlement is approved and you are a Class Member, you may
be eligible to receive a Cash Payment in the amount of either $110
or $55 or a Credit Certificate in the amount of either $210 or $105
at your option. You are a Class Member if you purchased a new ASUS
Rog Strix GL502VS or GL502VSK laptop from Defendants or an
authorized ASUS retailer between May 4, 2014 and November 19, 2019,
in the United States. Additionally, Defendants have extended the
warranty for GL502VS laptops that suffered from the Power Defect.
Call Defendants' technical support at 1-888-678-3688 to receive
instructions for obtaining Extended Warranty service. You may
receive a Cash Payment or Credit Certificate even if you obtain
Extended Warranty service.
To obtain a Cash Payment, you must submit a valid Claim Form. To
obtain a Credit Certificate, you must submit a valid Claim Form
unless you complained to Defendants about a Power Defect and/or
Overheating Issue prior to March 19, 2019. If your complaint is
reflected in Defendants' records, then you will automatically
receive a $210 Credit Certificate ("Automatic Credit Certificate").
If you prefer a Cash Payment, then you must submit a Claim Form.
Claim Forms are available at www.ASUSLaptopSettlement.com.
Depending on the benefit you request, Defendants may have the right
to demand an inspection of your Laptop to confirm that your Claim
is valid and you may have to provide proof of purchase. Visit
www.ASUSLaptopSettlement.com for more information about the
inspection process and conditions.
You may make a Claim and/or receive Qualifying Repairs under the
Extended Warranty, Object to the Settlement, Opt Out of the
Settlement, or do nothing. To receive a Cash Payment or Credit
Certificate, you must submit a Claim (unless you qualify for an
Automatic Credit Certificate), online or by mail, by April 3, 2020.
To receive a Qualifying Repair under the Extended Warranty, you
must contact Defendants at 1-888-678-3688, and follow their
instructions. If you Opt Out of the Settlement, you may pursue a
separate lawsuit, but you will receive no settlement benefit. Your
Opt-Out request must be submitted online or postmarked by April 3,
2020. If you do not Opt Out, you give up your right to bring a
separate lawsuit. To Object, you must submit a written Objection
that complies with the requirements set forth in the Settlement
Notice available at www.ASUSLaptopSettlement.com. Your Objection
must be filed with the Court by April 3, 2020. Do nothing, and you
will not receive a settlement benefit (unless you qualify for an
Automatic Credit Certificate) and you will release claims against
Defendants that relate to the allegations in the lawsuit. You may
still obtain repairs under the Extended Warranty, if applicable.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 30, 2020 at
1:00 P.M. PST, to consider whether to approve the Settlement. The
hearing will be held in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, before Magistrate Judge Donna M.
Ryu, in the Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
94612, in courtroom 4 on the 3rd floor, or such other judge
assigned by the Court. The Court will decide whether to approve the
Settlement and whether to award Attorneys' Fees and Expenses of up
to $787,500 and an Incentive Award of up to $5,000 to Plaintiff.
The motion seeking Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and an Incentive
Award will be posted on www.ASUSLaptopSettlement.com after it is
filed. You may, but don't have to, attend the hearing. Cash
Payments and Credit Certificates will be issued to the Settlement
Class Members only if the Settlement is approved and after any
Objections are resolved. Please be patient.
For more information, visit www.ASUSLaptopSettlement.com, or
contact the Claim Administrator by email at
Info@ASUSLaptopSettlement.com or by phone at 1-844-263-6122. You
can also obtain additional information by contacting Class Counsel
at: Seth A. Safier, Gutride Safier LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite
1250, San Francisco, CA 94111/Tel: 415-639-9090.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT DEFENDANTS OR THE COURT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT.
Media Contact:
Douglas S. Clauson, Esq.
Director, Communications
Angeion Group
Tel: (215) 563-4116
[GN]
AUTONATION INC: Pham Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Pham, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Autonation, Inc. and Texan Ford, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00001, (S.D. Tex., January 1, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, declaratory relief, back
pay and liquidated damages, attorney's fees and taxable costs of
court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Autonation and Texan are into the retail and servicing of new and
pre-owned automobiles where Pham worked as a tinting specialist.
Defendants pay him on a piece-rate basis but he regularly works
over forty hours a week in order to complete the tint installation
and usually doesn't get paid for this, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
Scott Stambush, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Tel: (713) 223–8855
Fax: (713) 623–6399
Email: ttran@tranlawllp.com
service@tranlawllp.com
BAOZUN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Baozun, Inc. Stockholders
have until the deadline to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff.
Baozun, Inc. (NASDAQ: BZUN)
Class Period: March 6, 2019 to November 20, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 10, 2020
On November 21, 2019, Baozun announced its 3Q19 financial results
for the interim period ended September 30, 2019 and provided its
4Q19 financial guidance. Rather than the revenues of $214 million
Baozun had led the investment community to expect, the Company
reported revenues of just $210.3 million. Likewise, earnings per
ADR of $0.14 were below the $0.15 per ADR the investment community
had been led to expect. More critically, Baozun disclosed the
electronics customer loss would negatively impact results for the
rest of 2019 and for the first half of 2020, stating that for the
4Q19 it now only expected revenues in the range of $384 million to
$391.2 million, well below the $401 million the Company had led the
investment community to expect based on its prior Class Period
statements.
On this news, the market price of Baozun ADRs plummeted, declining
by $7.60 per share, or approximately 17.5%, to close at $35.90 per
share on November 21, 2019.
The complaint, filed on December 10, 2019, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements and
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct
that artificially inflated the price of Baozun ADRs and operated as
a fraud or deceit on Class Period purchasers of Baozun ADRs by
misrepresenting the value of the Company's business and prospects.
As Defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became
apparent to the market, the price of Baozun ADRs fell
precipitously, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the
price. As a result of their purchases of Baozun ADRs during the
Class Period, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered
economic losses.
For more information on the Baozun class action go to:
https://bespc.com/bzun
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.
Contact:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Phone: (212) 355-4648
Website: www.bespc.com
Email: investigations@bespc.com
fortunato@bespc.com
walker@bespc.com
[GN]
BAOZUN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in the securities class action lawsuit against:
Baozun Inc. (BZUN)
Class Period: 3/6/2019 - 11/20/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 10, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-bzun/
If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss,
you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing
Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Tel: 1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]
BAOZUN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-baozun-class-action-lawsuit.html)
filed a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Baozun
Inc. (NASDAQ:BZUN) American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during the
period between March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019 (the "Class
Period") in the Southern District of New York. The case is
captioned Snyder v. Baozun Inc. et al., No. 19-cv-11290. The Baozun
class action lawsuit charges Baozun and certain of its officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Baozun class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than February 10, 2020.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Baozun ADRs during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Baozun class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Baozun class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Baozun class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Baozun class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
in the Baozun class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no
later than February 10, 2020. If you wish to discuss the Baozun
class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Brian E. Cochran or Michael Albert of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
or malbert@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint filed
in the Baozun class action lawsuit at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-baozun-class-action-lawsuit.html.
Baozun provides e-commerce services to brand partners in the
People's Republic of China. The Company offers end-to-end
e-commerce services, including IT infrastructure setup and
integration, sale of apparel, home and electronic products, online
store design and setup, visual merchandising and marketing, online
store operations, customer services, warehousing, and order
fulfillment, that help companies sell their branded goods online.
The complaint in the Baozun class action lawsuit alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
Baozun's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. ("Huawei"), a
Chinese-based multi-national technology company, was one of the
Company's largest brand partners, on a historical basis, 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. This caused Baozun to report outsized revenue
growth during the first half of 2019, which would be abruptly cut
off during the second half 2019, after Baozun restructured its
relationship with Huawei, as Huawei took much of its online
merchandizing in-house. As a result of this information being
withheld from the market, the price of Baozun ADRs was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period, allowing Baozun to sell at
least 2.25 million ADRs in a registered public stock offering at
$40 per ADR on or about April 10, 2019, raising $90 million, and
close a concurrent offering of $225 million in aggregate principal
amount of convertible senior notes due 2024 the same day, receiving
net proceeds of approximately $269 million.
Then on November 21, 2019, Baozun announced third quarter 2019
financial results that were lower than the market had been led to
expect and provided dismal fourth quarter 2019 financial guidance,
blaming, in large part, the adverse "impact from terminating our
service agreement with one electronics brand." Though Baozun did
not disclose who that large "electronics brand" was, many in the
financial media have suggested that it was Huawei. On this news,
the price of Baozun ADRs fell $7.60 per ADR, or more than 17%, to
close at $35.90 per ADR on November 21, 2019.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of
Baozun ADRs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff in
the Baozun class action lawsuit is represented by Robbins Geller,
which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class
actions including actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
[GN]
BLUE BUFFALO CO: White Hits Excessive Carbohydrates in Dog Food
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00001 (S.D. N.Y., January 1, 2020), seeks restitution and
disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages and
interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for
attorneys and experts and such other and further relief resulting
from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and for
violation of New York general business laws and breach of
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution.
Defendant markets the "Blue Wilderness" line of dog food products.
White claims that their products contain high levels of dietary
carbohydrates which are neither healthy for dogs nor a meaningful
part of their diet. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Ramirez, Esq.
REESE LLP
7 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, NY 10532
Telephone: (914) 860-4994
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: cramirez@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
BLUELOON INC: Burokas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Tricialynn Burokas, and others similarly situated v. BLUELOON INC.,
AND ADAM WOOL, Case No. 4:30-cv-00004-HRH (D. Ala., Jan. 24, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime, wages due,
penalties and damages.
On May 16, 2019, the Blueloon burned down. On May 3, 2019, the
Plaintiff received her final paycheck for her work.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid for overtime hours, and
not paid overtime premium of time and one half for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week during the entire time of her employment with
the Blueloon. She adds that she was not paid for all hours worked
during her Blueloon employment.
Ms. Burokas was employed by the Defendants as a bar manager in July
2015.
Blueloon is a bar, restaurant, musical venue and movie theater
located in or near Fairbanks Alaska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth L. Covell, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH L. COVELL
712 Eighth Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: (907) 452-4377
Fax: (907) 451-7802
Email: covelladmin@gci.net
kcovell@gci.net
BOOT BARN: Faces Sleeper Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boot Barn, Inc. The
case is captioned as Hugh Sleeper, On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Boot Barn, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2019-00272000-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 23, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Boot Barn owns and operates a chain western and workwear retail
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
Telephone: (760) 942-9433
Facsimile: (760) 452-4421
E-mail: clucio@farnaeslaw.com
BUSHFIRE GRILL: Settlement Hearing on Pacheco Suit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAIRO PACHECO, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs,
v. BUSHFIRE GRILL, INC., a California corporation; BUSHFIRE
BEACHSIDE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18cv01696-JAH (WVG) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California vacated the hearing set for Jan. 6, 2020 on
Plaintiff Pacheco's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
After careful review of the Plaintiff's submission, the Court
deemed the Plaintiff's motion suitable for adjudication without
oral argument. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is taken under
submission without oral argument and the hearing set for Jan. 6,
2020, is vacated. The Court will issue an order in due course.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QvuQu3 from Leagle.com.
Jairo Pacheco, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, represented by
Jenny D. Baysinger, Mayall Hurley P.C. & Nicholas J. Scardigli --
nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC.
Bushfire Grill, Inc., a California corporation & Bushfire
Beachside, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, represented
by Erik T. Johnson -- ejohnson@pettitkohn.com -- Sacks Ricketts &
Case LLP & Jennifer N. Lutz, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PC.
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Visser Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul L. Maloney denies Donald Visser's motion to certify a
class in the lawsuit captioned DONALD VISSER, et al. v. CARIBBEAN
CRUISE LINE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01029-PLM (W.D.
Mich.).[CC]
CARTER BROTHERS: $823K Deal in Gutierrez Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMSES GUTIERREZ, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARTER BROTHERS
SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, AT&T
DIGITAL LIFE, INC., PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY DBA AT&T
DATACOMM, INC., AT&T CORP. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-00351-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement and Direction of
Notice.
On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed the instant class action on
behalf of themselves and other putative class members against the
Defendants. They are seeking damages, restitution, civil
penalties, and injunctive relief as a result of the Defendants'
alleged violations of both state and federal labor laws. The
Plaintiffs further allege conversion along with violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Presently before the court is a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Settlement and Direction of Notice brought by the
Plaintiffs, preliminarily approving for settlement purposes a
Settlement Class of 35 workers who worked as Carter Brothers
technicians installing AT&T products in Northern California, during
the four years prior to the filing of the action. AT&T does not
oppose this motion.
In consideration for settlement of the action, AT&T agrees to pay
the sum of $823,329 for payments to the settlement class members,
penalties to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"),
penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), service awards to the 14 named Plaintiffs, the class
counsel's attorney fees and costs, and administrative costs. AT&T
has also agreed to separately enter into individual settlements
with 30 workers who worked as Carter Brothers technicians
installing AT&T products: (a) in Southern California; and (b)
outside of California in Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Michigan.
These settlements will not be funded from the $823,329 Settlement
Fund but rather by funds in addition to the Settlement Fund to be
paid by AT&T. These settlements are subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the separate agreements with the Southern
California Individual Settling Parties and the Out-of-State
Individual Settling Parties. All Southern California Individual
Settling Parties and Out-of-State Individual Settling Parties, on
the one hand, and AT&T, on the other hand have executed these
individual settlement agreements, which are conditioned upon the
Court's final approval of this settlement.
Defendant Carter Brothers is not participating in the settlement
and filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on July 10, 2018.
Judge England granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Settlement and Direction of Notice. He
appointed Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions of Orange,
California as class administrator. The parties are directed to
give notice to the putative class members. The draft notice of
settlement submitted to the Court as Exhibit D to the Declaration
of Joseph W Rose, is approved.
The final approval hearing is scheduled for April 30, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. in Courtroom 7 of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lIX4vd from Leagle.com.
Ramses Gutierrez, Jonathan Jacob, Toussaint Chivars, Joshua
Espiritu, Patrick Williams, Sam Preeg, Ricardo Sapasap, Armando
Torres, Keondre Masters, Gianfranco Uy, Christopher Addo, Alan
Osorio, Keith Polee, Earl Gray & Zachary Finer, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joseph Wayne Rose -- joe@joeroselaw.com -- Rose
Law, APC & Mehran Tahoori -- mehran@joeroselaw.com -- Rose Law,
APC.
Carter Brothers Security Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jason R. Dawson, Esq. -- jdawson@gordonrees.com -- & Jeffrey W.
Melcher, Esq. -- jmelcher@gordonrees.com -- of Gordon & Rees LLP.
AT&T Digital Life, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe,
Esq. -- Alan.Rupe@KutakRock.com -- Mark Allen Kanaga, Esq. --
mark.kanaga@kutakrock.com -- Matthew C. Sgnilek, Esq. --
Matthew.Sgnilek@KutakRock.com -- Brian F. Hansen, Esq. --
Brian.Hansen@KutakRock.com & Nathan J. Allen, Esq. --
Nathan.Allen@KutakRock.com of Kutak Rock, LLP.
CELGENE CORP: Backs Out of $55-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sagonowsky, writing for Fierce Pharma, reports that in an
unusual move, Celgene has backed out of a $55 million settlement
with patients and payers over allegations it illegally blocked
competition to multiple myeloma meds Thalomid and Revlimid. With
the decision, the company will go back to fighting claims from
thousands of patients and payers, who allege billions in damages.
Celgene, now part of Bristol-Myers Squibb under last year's massive
merger, originally agreed to the deal in July and backed out on
December 23, plaintiffs' lawyers say. Patient advocate David
Mitchell, plus several union pension funds, brought the class
action lawsuit.
When the sides agreed to their $55 million deal, the agreement
included stipulations that Celgene could back out if certain
plaintiffs didn't opt in. In all, more than 8,000 patients and 800
payers opted in to the original settlement. But 80 plaintiffs opted
out in order to bring their own lawsuits, and Celgene rescinded the
agreement based on those opt-outs, plaintiffs' lawyers say.
Now, the drugmaker will have to defend against claims in a class
that includes about 9,000 plaintiffs.
The case centers on allegations that Celgene refused to sell
samples of Thalomid and Revlimid to deter copycat development and
inked supply agreements to restrict the distribution of Thalomid's
active ingredient. Further, the company allegedly filed sham patent
challenges as another way to block competition.
Plaintiffs say they could've saved more than $3 billion if a
generic had been approved earlier, but Celgene's actions blocked
that possibility.
Celgene's move is unusual, experts say. The "rescission provisions
are common in class settlements, but I have never heard of a
defendant ever actually rescinding an agreement," Melinda Coolidge,
Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
A BMS spokesperson said Celgene "exercised its right to terminate
the settlement in light of the fact that numerous large third party
payors who were members of the settlement class refused to release
their potential claims and participate in the settlement."
One week after last year's $55 million settlement, Celgene inked a
$62 million settlement with Mylan over similar allegations.
The drugmaker has dealt with years of criticism over price hikes
and allegations of anticompetitive conduct for Revlimid. The drug
is among the world's best-selling medicines and was a key part of
Bristol-Myers' $74 billion buyout offer. [GN]
CHEMOURS: PFAS Water Contamination Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Greg Barnes, writing for North Carolina Health News, reports that
no one told Army veteran Carter Bryant about groundwater
contamination near the Chemours Fayetteville Works plant when he
bought a home there in July.
Bryant said he knew almost nothing about GenX and other per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances -- commonly known as PFAS or "forever
chemicals" -- before he and his family moved in.
About two months later, Bryant said, he received a notice from
Chemours stating that contaminants in his home's well water exceed
the level North Carolina considers safe to drink.
Under terms of a consent order, Chemours supplied Bryant with
bottled water until it could install a reverse osmosis filtration
system under his kitchen sink and in two bathrooms.
Bryant is far from alone.
At the beginning of December, 1,673 homes within a nine-mile radius
of the plant had qualified for filtration systems.
Maintained and operating properly, those systems are expected to
remove the potentially cancer-causing contaminants from residents'
drinking water.
But they were never meant to be a permanent solution.
A permanent fix would require extending public water lines, but at
this point, no one seems willing to pay the soaring costs.
Welcome to Gray's Creek
Most of the affected homes lie in the Gray's Creek community along
the southern edge of Cumberland County. The community's northern
boundary presses against Hope Mills and Fayetteville. The Cape Fear
River bisects the area.
Here, you'll find sprawling farms that have been tended by the same
families for generations. You'll also find new subdivisions that
seem to have sprung up almost overnight.
The neighborhoods come with trendy names, such as James' Place,
Lynn Meadows and Shannon Woods.
Some of the homes come with hefty price tags upward of $300,000.
Many are being built right now. Others have only recently been
bought, many by soldiers stationed at nearby Fort Bragg or veterans
such as Bryant who are looking for a quiet, peaceful lifestyle.
Like Bryant, some of the new homeowners say they would have chosen
another place to live had they been told about the contamination.
"We would never have bought," said Tim Daniels, who relocated with
his wife, Shawna, from Pennsylvania and bought a home in the James'
Place neighborhood in December 2018.
Since then, they have added an inground pool, a privacy fence and
other improvements that Daniels said set him back about $70,000.
That was all done before the couple learned about the
contamination.
Last summer, a contractor for Chemours tested their well water. The
results came back on Sept. 11 showing PFAS contamination above a 70
parts per trillion threshold.
That's the level specified in the consent order entered in February
by Chemours, the state Department of Environmental Quality and the
environmental advocacy group Cape Fear River Watch.
The consent order requires Chemours to install filtration systems
whenever a well tests above 10 parts per trillion for a single PFAS
or over 70 parts per trillion for a combination of them. The order
also requires Chemours to provide public water or whole-house
filtration systems to homes, schools and businesses that test above
140 parts per trillion for GenX.
"I had no idea," about groundwater contamination, said Gray's Creek
resident Jordan Johnson. "My husband is military and we aren't
going to be here forever." Johnson bought an older home on Midus
Street about two years ago. She was awaiting her test results.
Active-duty soldiers are typically required to move from one
military base to another every two to three years. Johnson and
others worry whether they will be able to sell their homes.
Summer Trimm bought a house on School Road in 2018, after Hurricane
Matthew flooded her previous home in Gray's Creek. Trimm said a
real estate agent advised her to get her well tested before
buying.
Trimm said she was told that her well would be sampled for GenX.
When the tests came back, she said, everything looked good. Unknown
to her at the time, the tests failed to sample for GenX or other
PFAS.
Chemours conducted another test of Trimm's well water about two
months ago. Trimm said she learned soon afterward that she
qualified for a filtration system.
"I can't even believe we live in a world that that can happen and
it go under the radar that long," she said.
Airborne pollution
The Chemours Fayetteville Works plant lies about five miles from
Trimm's home, on a 2,150-acre tract along the Cape Fear River. The
plant sits just across the Cumberland County line, in Bladen
County. It was built by DuPont in the early 1970s and became
Chemours in 2015 when Chemours was spun off from DuPont.
Tall vent stacks protrude from the plant's maze of pipes and
buildings. From those stacks, DuPont and Chemours emitted thousands
of pounds of GenX and other PFAS into the air. The chemicals were
blown with the wind and fell with the rain, seeping into
groundwater and contaminating the wells surrounding the plant. A
DEQ sample of rainwater taken in April 2018 measured GenX at 1,580
parts per trillion.
A map of contaminated wells provided by the DEQ begins to tell the
story. Think of a dartboard, with Chemours as the bullseye and 16
pie-shaped sectors extending outward from there. Concentric circles
mark the distance from the plant in miles.
Hundreds of small dots representing contaminated wells fill much of
the map. One dot is unique from all of the others in that it is
farthest from the plant -- nine miles.
Every time a well is found to be contaminated at the farthest edge
of testing, Chemours is required by the consent order to expand its
search parameters another quarter of a mile.
Chemours and state regulators didn't expect the contamination zone
to expand out nine miles when testing began about two years ago.
Today, they still don't know where the zone will end, though the
contamination does appear to be lessening as the distance from the
plant increases.
Shortly after Christmas, Chemours began operating a $100 million
thermal oxidizer. The equipment, essentially a giant incinerator,
is expected to reduce 99 percent of the PFAS from 2017 levels
before the chemicals can leave the plant.
Residents are livid
The dots on the map don't just represent contaminated wells. They
represent people. Thousands of them. People who are forced to drink
bottled water while waiting for Chemours to install filtration
systems. People who now worry about their health and the health of
their loved ones. Some of them had been unknowingly drinking
contaminated water for decades.
They worry because forever chemicals, a class of about 5,000
substances that includes GenX, have been found to cause cancer in
laboratory animals. Their potential effects on humans are less
known, but studies show they include liver and kidney damage, high
cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, preeclampsia, low birth weight and
reduced vaccine response in infants. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency classifies PFAS as "possibly carcinogenic."
For that and other reasons, people who live in the nine-mile radius
surrounding Chemours are livid. They believe that they were
knowingly poisoned and that their property values will plummet.
At a community forum on Dec. 3 in Tar Heel, people wanted to know
about the effects of PFAS on their health. How to get their blood
tested. Whether it is safe for their children to bathe in
contaminated well water. Who to call to get their wells sampled.
Hundreds of people regularly go on a Facebook advocacy group page
to provide or search for information or to attack Chemours and
state regulators. They demand action but say they get little
response. Many of them have joined a class-action lawsuit.
It's no coincidence that as the contamination zone expands, so too
does membership to the Facebook page, "Gray's Creek Residents
united against PFAS in our wells and Rivers."
In late November, the group listed about 700 members. By
mid-December, it had claimed its 1,000th member.
The enormous growth is due, in part, to Chemours stepping up well
sampling. Chemours is now testing between 200 and 250 wells a week
in the contamination zone, company spokeswoman Lisa Randall said.
There is another, perhaps larger reason for the growth in the
website's membership.
Mike Watters, a Gray's Creek resident, activist and the group's
administrator, has been going door to door with other members to
warn people about the contamination and to urge them to get their
wells tested.
Even now, Watters said, he is amazed by how many people don't know
about the contamination.
"This house has ruined my life"
The well contamination appears to be indiscriminate.
Eric Bostic said his and seven other new houses in a row along
Gray's Creek Church Road all have wells containing PFAS that exceed
the consent order's threshold.
Cassandra Pilkington, who bought her house in the new James' Place
subdivision in July, said her well does not contain excessive
levels of PFAS, though she believes it could soon.
"This house has ruined my life," Pilkington said. "They can say all
they want, that it's not contaminated, it's just a matter of time
that ours is."
Daniels, who does have well contamination, lives directly behind
Pilkington. Both homes draw water from the same aquifer. The DEQ
could not say whether the contamination is likely to spread to
other wells. There are too many variables, officials said. It
appears that deeper wells are less likely to be contaminated.
Nearby, tests revealed no contamination at Alderman Road Elementary
School. A quarter-mile down the road, however, bottled water
continues to be supplied to Gray's Creek Elementary School. Recent
tests showed PFAS nearing the threshold there.
Nastassja Toombs, a real estate agent, lives in a home with well
contamination in the developing Shannon Woods subdivision. Toombs'
home was the first one built. Many others have recently been sold
or are still being constructed.
At the rear of the subdivision, Kanisha Lamothe had just received
her well test results. She said they came back negative. Next door,
a soldier inspected a house that was being built for him. He said
he planned to get his well water tested. His house was nearing
completion.
Realtors in the dark
Tim Evans is a real estate broker and developer who selects the
builders for the James' Place subdivision and sells the homes
through his company, Longleaf Properties.
Evans, who lives in Gray's Creek, said he had no idea that the
contamination extended to James' Place when construction began on
the first house in the subdivision. He said he found out about
three or four months ago when test results started coming back.
Evans said he has not sold a house in James' Place since he learned
about the contamination. He vowed to disclose the contamination to
all new potential buyers and said he already has done so. Several
houses in the subdivision are on the market.
Evans does question whether the levels being detected in James'
Place are high enough to cause anyone harm. At those levels, he
said, he wouldn't hesitate to buy a house there.
"I would buy a house in James' Place today based on the testing
that has just been revealed because there is more wells in there
that have tested negative than positive and none have tested above
140 parts per trillion," he said.
Toombs, the real estate agent who lives in Shannon Woods and real
estate broker Kristin Barfield, who also lives in Gray's Creek and
has a contaminated well, say real estate agents are bound by their
profession to disclose material facts, including groundwater
contamination, before a home is bought or sold.
"I'm not going to put my license and reputation at risk," Barfield
said. "I'm always going to disclose."
As in any profession, Barfield said, there are going to be
unscrupulous agents. But she and Toombs say the real problem is
that little information is getting out to the agents. Many, they
say, don't know the contamination exists.
Toombs said she has spoken to fellow agents about the
contamination.
"They were clueless," she said. They said "I thought they treated
it, I thought they fixed the issue, I didn't know it was spreading
the way it is.
"How are we supposed to be knowledgeable of this when we don't have
the correct information?"
Barfield has started a blog that she hopes will help educate agents
and the public alike. She also had set up a meeting with agents to
discuss the matter.
Disclosure form coming
Longleaf Pine Realtors is an association that oversees more than
1,400 agents in Cumberland and surrounding counties. Last year, at
the association's request, representatives of Chemours spoke at a
luncheon to 350 agents about the contamination. (Chemours does not
believe the levels of GenX and other PFAS being detected in the
wells are harmful.)
Otherwise, the association has done little to educate its agents
about the potential dangers of PFAS and their presence in Gray's
Creek.
Rosemary Buerger, president of the association's board before her
term ended in mid-December, placed the responsibility squarely on
the EPA.
The EPA has set health advisories for only two PFAS - the so-called
legacy compounds PFOA and PFOS, which are no longer manufactured in
this country. The state has a health advisory of 140 parts per
trillion for GenX in drinking water. The other 5,000 PFAS have no
such advisories in North Carolina. The EPA continues to study
whether more regulations are necessary at the federal level.
Buerger, a real estate agent, said it's up to the EPA to regulate
PFAS.
"I have to follow their guideline of what is and what is not
contamination," Buerger said. "Without the EPA we have nothing to
go on."
About a week after Buerger made those comments, she told NC Health
News that lawyers are now working on a disclosure statement that
would be attached to real estate closing documents for homes in the
contamination zone.
"There are too many questions," Buerger said. "The only way to
answer those questions is to have a disclosure … so now we'll
have a specific disclosure for the Gray's Creek area."
Barfield, the real estate agent, called the disclosure "a
double-edged sword" that could result in fewer houses being sold
and property values decreasing.
"But I would rather take the risk of property values going down,"
she said. "I would rather take full disclosure and not have to
worry about lawsuits."
The disclosure document could go a long way to letting people know
that the home they are planning to buy may have a contaminated
well, but it doesn't completely resolve the problem.
As it stands now, developers and home builders don't have to test
for PFAS, said Adrian Jones, director of environmental health for
the Cumberland County Health Department. State regulations prohibit
the department from making such a requirement, Jones said in an
email.
Jones said the department does try to inform some people of the
contamination.
"When people come to the office who live within 2.5 miles of the
Chemours Plant, we do make them aware of what is going on in the
area," he said in the email.
Well contamination now has been detected as far as nine miles from
the plant.
Public water on hold
Gray's Creek has long had issues with well contamination. Before
PFAS, arsenic, benzene and other contaminants were found in wells
in the area. Cumberland County formed a water district for Gray's
Creek, but in 2011 residents voted against extending public water
lines to the area. They worried that it would bring unwanted
development and annexation.
That sentiment appears to have changed. With the discovery of PFAS,
Chemours is required to pay to extend public water lines to any
home with a well contaminated by PFAS, provided the cost of the
connection to each home doesn't exceed $75,000.
The problem is that the anticipated per-household cost is now
estimated at $92,000 or more, according to a letter dated June 21
from Cumberland County Manager Amy Cannon to David Trego, general
manager of the Fayetteville Public Works Commission. [GN]
CLIENT SERVICES: Grier FDCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Nicole Grier, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01920 (D. Del., October
9, 2019) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on January 3, 2020, under Case No.
20-cv-00007.
Grier seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys'
fees under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Client Services is a debt collector who attempted to collect an
obligation allegedly incurred by Grier to Citibank, N.A via a
Bestbuy VISA card. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES
1501 Rydal Rd.
Rydal, PA 19046
Tel: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
Client Services is represented by:
Monica M. Littman, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
Two Logan Square
100 N. 18th Street, Suite 701
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 501-7002/7024
Fax: (215) 405-2973
Email: mlittman@kdvlaw.com
rperr@kdvlaw.com
- and -
Deirdre Marie Richards, Esq.
FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC
1300 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 538-8331
Email: drichards@finemanlawfirm.com
CONAIR CORPORATION: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conair Corporation.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Conair Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00385 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Conair Corporation is an American company based in Stamford,
Connecticut which sells small appliances, personal care products,
and health and beauty products for both professionals and
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Amended Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHOON'S DESIGN, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of a
Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
CONTEXTLOGIC INC. d/b/a WISH, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-05300-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division,
has entered an order setting a briefing schedule for Wish's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against Wish on
Aug. 23, 2019. Wish's original deadline to file a response to the
Plaintiff's complaint was Oct. 17, 2019.
On Oct. 11, 2019, the Parties submitted a Stipulated Request and
Proposed Order to Set a Briefing Schedule For Anticipated Motion to
Dismiss Complaint, which was entered by the Court on Oct. 15, 2019.
Pursuant to the Stipulation, Wish's deadline to respond to the
Complaint was extended to Oct. 23, 2019, and Nov. 18, 2019 was set
as the Plaintiff's deadline to oppose any motion to dismiss.
On Oct. 23, 2019, Wish filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to
Strike Class Allegations and Portions of Complaint.
Pursuant to Rule 26(f), the Parties met and conferred on Nov. 5,
2019, and discussed, among other things, whether the Plaintiff
would oppose the Motion or amend the Complaint, and the Plaintiff
represented that it was likely to file an Amended Complaint by Nov.
13, 2019. Wish anticipates that any Amended Complaint is likely to
remain defective in whole or in part, and anticipates filing a
further motion to dismiss.
The Parties believe that the briefing schedule agreed to below,
which accounts for the Parties' respective holiday and travel
schedules, will allow a more orderly and thorough presentation of
the arguments the Parties anticipate on the complex issues
presented by the expected Amended Complaint.
The Court held the Initial Case Management Conference on Nov. 26,
2019 with the counsel for all parties in attendance. It ordered
the parties to meet and confer regarding accelerating the briefing
schedule for Wish's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint, and to file a stipulation and proposed order regarding
an accelerated schedule, or a stipulation (no order required)
advising the Court that the current schedule remains in effect.
The Parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Gilliam approved to
the following briefing schedule for Wish's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint:
(i) Deadline for Wish to file Answer or Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Dec. 13, 2019; (ii) Deadline
for Plaintiff to file Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, if any -
Jan. 17, 2020; (iii) Deadline for Wish to file Reply in Support of
Motion to Dismiss, if any - January 31, 2020; and (iv) Hearing, if
any, on Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint - Feb. 20, 202.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0aZ4jv from Leagle.com.
Choon's Design, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa Jean
Frisella -- lisa@frisellalaw.com -- FRISELLA LAW APC, R. Dean
Gresham -- dean@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC,
pro hac vice, Bruce W. Steckler -- bruce@steckerlaw.com -- Steckler
Gresham Cochran PLLC, pro hac vice, Stuart Cochran --
stuart@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran, pro hac vice &
Kimberly Dawn Neilson -- kim@frisellalaw.com -- Law Office of Lisa
J. Frisella, APC.
ContextLogic Inc., doing business as Wish, Defendant, represented
by John W. Crittenden -- jcrittenden@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Judd
D. Lauter -- jlauter@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Whitty Somvichian
-- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.
CORMARK SECURITIES: Ontario Class Action vs. Brokerages Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Exeuctive, reports that the
Divisional Court of Ontario has ordered that a proposed
class-action lawsuit against a pair of brokerage firms should be
certified.
In a Jan. 6 decision, the court reversed a judge's Oct. 24, 2017,
decision, which denied class-action certification against Cormark
Securities Inc. and Dundee Securities Ltd., the underwriters of a
secondary offering by Hycroft Mining Corp.
In 2017, the certification judge ruled that a class action was not
the "preferable procedure" for pursuing a claim against the
underwriters for negligent misrepresentation; a claim against
Hycroft and a couple of its executives was certified.
The allegations have not been proven.
In its decision, the divisional court outlined why a class action
is preferable in the Hycroft case.
"If the class action against the underwriters is not certified, the
alternative is multiple trials across Canada," the Divisional Court
said in its reasons for decision.
"The issue of whether Hycroft made a misrepresentation and the six
proposed common issues against the underwriters will have to be
heard again and again," the divisional court said. "This will have
a deleterious effect on judicial economy and there is a clear risk
of inconsistent results."
Additionally, the divisional court found that deterrence to
misconduct "is significantly weakened" if investors have to bring
their own lawsuits, "because the loss amounts are smaller and
because of access to justice issues."
"If individual investors are left to their own devices to right
these wrongs, there will be little financial incentive for
underwriters to meet the standard of care required by the
certificate mandated by the Securities Act," divisional court
added.
Ultimately, it concluded that it was a mistake to deny class action
certification.
The divisional court allowed the appeal and ordered that the
plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation against the firms
should be certified. [GN]
COX COMMUNICATIONS CA: Denied Gil Overtime, Meal Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------
Don Gil, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cox Communications California, LLC and Does
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020 00000389, (Cal. Super.,
January 3, 2020) claims relief for Cox's alleged failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to pay final wages and unfair competition in violation of
California labor laws.
Cox Communications provides digital cable television,
telecommunications and Home Automation services in the United
States.[BN]
Gil is represented by:
William B. Sullivan
Eric K. Yaeckel
Ryan T. Kuhn
SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
2330 Third Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 702-6760
Facsimile: (619)702-6761
E-Mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
ryan@swl1vanlawgroupapc.com
CRESCOM CORPORATION: Reaves Files Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crescom Corporation.
The case is styled as Kathrine Reaves, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crescom Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254-DCN (D.S.C., Jan. 24, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
CresCom Bank provides banking services. The Company offers online
banking, current accounts, mobile banking, personal loans, debit
cards, e-banking, mortgage loan, commercial lending, cash
management, and insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M Wilkerson, Esq.
The Van Winkle Law Firm
11 North Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
DEL FRISCO'S: Resto Staff Files Bid for Judicial Intervention
-------------------------------------------------------------
In case docketed as Christian Guzman, Xavier Asitimbay and Pablo
Zempoalteca, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, V. Del Frisco's of New York, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 617666/2019 (N.Y. Sup., December 19, 2019), Plaintiffs
filed a request for judicial intervention on January 2, 2020.
Plaintiffs seek to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
and other compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.
Del Frisco operates Double Eagle Steakhouse located in New York
where Plaintiffs are tipped workers. They generally worked over 40
hours per week without overtime pay and were required to engage in
a tip distribution scheme wherein they must share a daily portion
of their total tips with tip-ineligible employees. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Defendant is represented by:
Johnathan C. Wilson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75225
Tel: (214) 987-3996
Email: jonathan.wilson@ogletree.com
DOLGENCORP LLC: Hall Hits Sexual Discrimination in Workplace
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherrell Hall, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00012 (N.D. Ala., January 3, 2020), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, costs and expenses in prosecuting this action,
award of reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pregnancy Discrimination
Act of 1978 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ms. Hall was hired by Dollar General in or around August 2016 as a
Picker for its Bessemer warehouse. Hall became pregnant twice
during her employment and Dollar General denied her request for a
twenty-pound lifting restriction due to her pregnancy and placed
her on unpaid leave for the duration of her pregnancies and was
denied the vacation pay-out she was to receive while on the unpaid
leave, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley E. Byrne, Jr., Esq.
Dustin J. Kittle, Esq.
Ashley M. Posey, Esq.
HUMBLE LAW, LLC
3112 Blue Lake Drive, Suite 100
Birmingham, AL 35243
Tel: (205) 358-3100
Fax: (205) 358-3033
E-mail: hello@humble.law
DUNDEE SECURITIES: Ontario Class Action vs. Brokerages Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Exeuctive, reports that the
Divisional Court of Ontario has ordered that a proposed
class-action lawsuit against a pair of brokerage firms should be
certified.
In a Jan. 6 decision, the court reversed a judge's Oct. 24, 2017,
decision, which denied class-action certification against Cormark
Securities Inc. and Dundee Securities Ltd., the underwriters of a
secondary offering by Hycroft Mining Corp.
In 2017, the certification judge ruled that a class action was not
the "preferable procedure" for pursuing a claim against the
underwriters for negligent misrepresentation; a claim against
Hycroft and a couple of its executives was certified.
The allegations have not been proven.
In its decision, the divisional court outlined why a class action
is preferable in the Hycroft case.
"If the class action against the underwriters is not certified, the
alternative is multiple trials across Canada," the Divisional Court
said in its reasons for decision.
"The issue of whether Hycroft made a misrepresentation and the six
proposed common issues against the underwriters will have to be
heard again and again," the divisional court said. "This will have
a deleterious effect on judicial economy and there is a clear risk
of inconsistent results."
Additionally, the divisional court found that deterrence to
misconduct "is significantly weakened" if investors have to bring
their own lawsuits, "because the loss amounts are smaller and
because of access to justice issues."
"If individual investors are left to their own devices to right
these wrongs, there will be little financial incentive for
underwriters to meet the standard of care required by the
certificate mandated by the Securities Act," divisional court
added.
Ultimately, it concluded that it was a mistake to deny class action
certification.
The divisional court allowed the appeal and ordered that the
plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation against the firms
should be certified. [GN]
EVEREST RECEIVABLE: Henderson Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everest Receivable
Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Latoya Henderson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Everest Receivable Services Inc., DNF Associates LLC,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00066-A (N.D. Tex.,
Jan. 27, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Everest Receivable Services Inc. is a licensed, full-service
consumer receivable asset management company that focuses on
recovery of delinquent consumer debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
Stein Saks PLLC
285 Passaic st
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
FANDUEL INC: Class Action Over Double Your Deposit Promos Fails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
lawsuit against a fantasy sports site was dismissed after a
plaintiff failed to actually state an injury he received by being
persuaded by the company's alleged advertisement.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the case on Dec. 19.
Chad Parnell of Arkansas filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and
others against FanDuel Inc., alleging it violated the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) as well as committed unjust
enrichment when it didn't fulfill an alleged promotion to match his
$200 deposit into his account. The Garland County Circuit Court
dismissed the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.
Parnell said that he would have never deposited the $200 if it
weren't for alleged advertisements from FanDuel that claimed the
company would match it.
"He clearly fails to allege 'any actual damage or injury' as
required under the previous version of the [ADTPA]," Associate
Justice Shawn A. Womack wrote, and his allegations that he
experienced monetary injuries were not enough.
"A complaint must allege facts that state a prima cause of action,
and such cannot be stated using conclusory allegations," the
justice wrote.
Womack also dismissed the unjust enrichment claims, stating that
Parnell didn't actually claim that FanDuel was unfairly
supplemented.
Justice Josephine Linker Hart dissented, stating that Parnell did
actually plead an injury by being out of the $200 he allegedly
deposited under false pretenses.
Parnell alleged he started a FanDuel account on the company's site,
but later filed the lawsuit in 2017 stating that there were false
advertisements used to spread the word about its fantasy sports
games. The ads allegedly told new subscribers that if they
deposited $200 in the account, FanDuel would match with an
additional $200. Parnell alleged in his lawsuit that FanDuel never
matched the $200 after he opened up his account. [GN]
FANNIN & RUSK: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fannin & Rusk
Associates, L.P. The case is styled as Jermaine Deleston on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fannin
& Rusk Associates, L.P. doing business as: Club Quarters Hotel, a
Texas limited partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00662
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Club Quarters Hotels are full service hotels located in world-class
cities in the U.S. and London.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 279-1555
Fax: (516) 213-0339
Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com
FENIX PARTS: Class Action Certified; $3.3MM Settlement Reached
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an
Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, the litigation BEEZLEY v. FENIX PARTS, INC., et al.
(N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:17-cv-07896), has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed Settlement of the Action for $3,300,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.
A hearing will be held on March 6, 2020 at 10:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Charles R. Norgle at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 2341, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL 60604, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated November 6, 2019 (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.FenixSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
Beezley v. Fenix Parts, Inc. et al., c/o JND Legal Administration,
P.O. Box 91222, Seattle, WA 98111-9322, 1-844-961-0322.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted on-line at
www.FenixSecuritiesLitigation.com no later than April 24, 2020. If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than February 14, 2020,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than February 14, 2020, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Fenix, or its
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
Tel: (202) 524-4290
E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
- and –
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Ex Kano Sams II, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Beezley v. Fenix Parts, Inc. et al.
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91222
Seattle, WA 98111-9322
1-844-961-0322
www.FenixSecuritiesLitigation.com
[GN]
FLASH MARKET LLC: Cashiers Seek Unpaid Overtime Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Dunlap and Molly Henderson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Flash Market, LLC and Jenelle
Garrett, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00005 (E.D. Ark., January 3,
2020), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendants' illegal withholding tips in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
Defendants own and operate a retail establishment, "Flash Market,"
where Dunlap and Henderson were employed as cashiers at their
Jacksonville location. They claim to routinely work in excess of 40
hours per workweek but was denied overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
FORESCOUT TECH: March 2 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announced that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Forescout Technologies. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)
Class Period: February 7, 2019 to October 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 2, 2020
The FSCT lawsuit alleges that Forescout Technologies, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Forescout was experiencing significant
volatility with respect to large deals and issues related to the
timing and execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially
in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa; (ii) the foregoing was
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Mar. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 2, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Forescout Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FSCT ) investors who purchased securities between February
7, 2019 and October 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact 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 October 10, 2019, before the market opened, Forescout reduced
third quarter 2019 revenue guidance to $90.6 million to $91.6
million, compared to prior guidance of $98.8 million to $101.8
million, due to "extended approval cycles which pushed several
deals out of the third quarter," which "was most pronounced in
EMEA."
On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or
more than 37%, to close at $24.57 per share on October 10, 2019,
thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Forescout was experiencing significant
volatility with respect to large deals and issues related to the
timing and execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially
in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa; (2) that the foregoing was
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results; and (3) that as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Forescout securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 2,
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.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200110005026/en/
Contact:
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
Website: www.glancylaw.com
[GN]
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of March 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in the securities class action lawsuit against:
Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)
Class Period: 2/7/2019 - 10/9/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 2, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fsct/
If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss,
you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing
Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Tel: 1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Forescout
Technologies, Inc. (FSCT). Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
FSCT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=5210&wire=1
Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)
FSCT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 7, 2019
- October 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 2, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=5210&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Forescout Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Forescout
was experiencing significant volatility with respect to large deals
and issues related to the timing and execution of deals in the
Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa; (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
FOUR BLR DOORS: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Garcia, Janeth Zapata, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Four BLR Doors, Corp. and Israel La Red,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-20024 (S.D. Fla., January
3, 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.
Defendant operates an installation company that specializes in high
impact, resistant windows and doors where Garcia and Janeth Zapata
worked in sales and human resources. They claim to routinely work
in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was denied overtime pay.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
Bayardo E. Alemán, Esq.
Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN
300 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 206
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Email: brody@pba-law.com
freddy@pba-law.com
valerie@pba-law.com
bayardo@pba-law.com
- and -
PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN
12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor
Davie, FL 33330
Telephone: (786) 485-5232
GILBERT ROZON: No Trial Date Yet in Assault Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that no date has yet been fixed for
Gilbert Rozon's trial, but the pace at which proceedings have
advanced makes it likely it will be in 2020. He chose a trial
before a judge alone, with no jury. Rozon is accused of rape and
indecent assault on a woman in crimes allegedly committed about 40
years ago in the Laurentian community of St-Sauveur.
The founder of Just for Laughs also faces a class action, initiated
by a group of women who call themselves Les Courageuses. They want
to claim damages from Rozon for the harassment and assault they
allege they suffered at his hands: They allege he abused at least
20 women between 1982 and 2016. Rozon rejects their allegations.
Apart from Patricia Tulasne, spokesperson for the group, the other
women cannot be identified. They are claiming about $10 million in
punitive damages in addition to moral and pecuniary damages.
Their action was green lit by a judge of the Superior Court but
appealed by Rozon, who is awaiting a judgement by Quebec's Court of
Appeal. [GN]
GREENVILLE, NC: Dismissal of Arrington Suit on Mold Incident Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE LITTLE WILLIE CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, MARVIN ARRINGTON, JR. and RENEE ARRINGTON on behalf of
Themselves and Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
GREENVILLE, Defendant, Case No. COA19-357 (N.C. App.), the Court of
Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the Nov. 14, 2018 order of the
trial court granting the City's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Center is a non-profit organization that provides services for
latchkey children and their families. In early 2007, the City
approached the Center to negotiate a rental agreement for property
to be used by the Center. In July 2007, the Center signed a lease
with the City for $1 per year. The Center and the City renewed the
lease twice, once on Dec. 8, 2010 and again on Feb. 12, 2013.
The Center notified the City of water leaks at the Property. In
2015, volunteers at the Center overheard City employees discussing
the poor condition of the Property. The Center then requested the
City to inspect the Property, but the City refused. Soon
thereafter, the Center hired LRC Indoor Testing and Research
("LRC") to inspect the Property for mold contamination. LRC issued
a report dated May 27, 2015 which was immediately given to the
City. LRC's report identified the Property as "contaminated with
the presence of actual mold growth and associated spores" and found
moderate levels of mold spores in various air samples. The Center
requested that the City provide alternative locations to house the
children because of the high levels of mold in the Property. The
City refused.
Around mid-2015, the City posted "biological hazard" signs on the
Property, and its agents wore hazmat suits while they removed the
mold. The Center requested documents from the City relating to the
Property, including inspections and repairs, from 2007 to 2015.
The City produced a two-page summary from a 2007 inspection which
indicated the presence of mold. It then communicated with the
County's Health Department regarding medical testing for the
Center's minor children, volunteers, and employees. However, the
Health Department did not provide medical testing.
On May 29, 2018, the Center filed a class action complaint in Pitt
County Superior Court for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive
trade practices, and negligence. The City's 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss was granted on Nov. 14, 2018. That same day, the Center
filed and served written notice of appeal. On appeal, the Center
argues that the trial court erred when it granted the City's Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because (1) the City is not entitled to
governmental immunity; and (2) its breach of contract and
negligence claims are not barred by the statute of limitations.
The Center argues that the City is not entitled to governmental
immunity because the City was engaged in a proprietary activity.
The Appellate Court agrees. The activity of owning property and
then leasing or renting such property is not an activity that is
within the exclusive province of government. Therefore, the
Appellate Court concludes that leasing property is a proprietary
activity, and the City is not entitled to governmental immunity.
While the City does not charge a substantial fee, it does charge a
fee to rent the Property. Whether a venture is profitable to the
City is not relevant to our inquiry. It is not the role of the
courts to second guess and substitute our judgment for the City's
business decisions. The Appellate Court therefore concludes that
the City was engaged in a proprietary function and had waived its
governmental immunity.
The Center also argues that the trial court erred in applying a
two-year statute of limitations on the breach of contract and
negligence claims rather than applying a three-year statute of
limitations to both. The Appellate Court disagrees. The Center
discovered the mold contamination on May 27, 2015 by way of the LRC
report. Because the Center did not commence this action until May
29, 2018, their claim for breach of contract is time-barred.
As for negligence, Section 1-53(1) applies to any negligence
actions that arise out of the rental agreement. The Center alleges
in their complaint that the mold contamination was discovered on
May 27, 2015. Thus, the Center's claim for negligence is barred by
the two-year statute of limitations because the Center did not
commence the action until May 29, 2018.
For the reasons set forth, the Appellate Court concludes that the
trial court erred in concluding that the City was shielded by
governmental immunity. However, the trial court did not err when
it granted the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because
the Center's negligence and breach of contract claims are
time-barred.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/bj5RUu from Leagle.com.
de Ondarza Simmons, PLLC, by Inez de Ondarza Simmons --
info@deondarzasimmons.com -- for plaintiffs-appellants.
McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, PLLC, by Jeffrey Donovan Keister --
jkeister@mgclaw.com -- for defendant-appellee.
HAPPIEST MINDS: Sulzberg Job Discrimination Suit Dismissal Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMI SULZBERG, Plaintiff, v. HAPPIEST MINDS
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05618-SVK (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and/or strike, which also includes a request for
judicial notice.
In the putative class action, Plaintiff Sulzberg alleges that the
Defendant engaged in employment discrimination on the basis of race
and national origin against individuals who are not South Asian and
who are not of Indian national origin. The Defendant provides
information technology and consulting services. It is
headquartered in India and has some employees in the United States.
Sulzberg, who is a Caucasian woman born in the United States,
worked for the Defendant in in the United States a sales role from
Jan. 17, 2018 until May 19, 2018. She contends that her
termination was the result of the Defendant's pattern or practice
of discriminating against non-South Asian and non-Indian employees
The Plaintiff brings the case individually and on behalf of the
putative class of all individuals who are not of South Asian race
and Indian national origin who applied for positions with (or
within) Happiest Minds in the U.S. and who were not hired and/or
who Happiest Minds involuntarily terminated. She asserts claims
under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
The Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. It also
seeks to strike the class action claims pursuant to Rule 12(f).
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the
basic requirements to sustain a class action because she has failed
to allege the existence of an ascertainable class and has not
alleged a well-defined community of interest in the questions of
law and fact involved. It also argues that a class action is not
the superior method of addressing the alleged discrimination, and
that the purported class is not numerous enough to justify class
status. The Defendant asserts that most of the foreign staff it
has hired have received employment visas from the Department of
Homeland Security under the H and L-visa categories.
Magistrate Judge van Kuelen concludes that the Defendant's attacks
on the class allegations in the complaint are premature, and
assuming the Plaintiff's allegations are true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in her favor, as the Court must on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the complaint adequately states plausible claims
under Title VII and Section 1981. Accordingly, she denied the
motion to dismiss.
The Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of DHS
"operating instructions" concerning the H-visa and L-visa programs.
Because the Magistrate Judge's foregoing ruling rejecting the
Defendant's arguments concerning the relationship of these visa
programs to the allegations of the complaint does not depend on the
substantive requirements of the H-visa or L-visa programs, the
Judge denied the request for judicial notice, without prejudice to
renewal of the request if the DHS operating instructions become
relevant to other aspects of the case.
In the notice of the Defendants' motion to dismiss, it argues that
the Court should strike the class-action claims by the Plaintiff,
as she failed to identify a certain class and failed to show she is
an adequate class representative. The Magistrate Judge finds that
the Defendant failed to articulate an argument in support of a
motion to strike in its memorandum of points and authorities,
separate from its argument that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to
state a claim, instead simply requesting that the Court
"strike/dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice."
As such, the Defendant has failed to offer any legal support for
its motion to strike the class allegations in the complaint under
Rule 12(f) because it has failed to explain what about those
allegations is "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous."
In any event, it is rare to strike class allegations at the
pleadings stage, id., and the Magistrate Judge declines to do so in
the case. Therefore, the motion to strike is denied.
For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge van Keulen denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, motion to strike, and request for
judicial notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WJV2ci from Leagle.com.
Tami Sulzberg, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Kotchen --
dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Kotchen & Low LLP, Michael J. Von Klemperer
-- mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, pro hac vice &
Daniel Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP.
Happiest Minds Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Dean Alexander Rocco -- dean.rocco@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser
LLP & Farbod Faizai Khorasani -- farbod.faizai@wilsonelser.com --
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP.
HINGHAM, MA: Suit Over Speed Limits Denied Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------
Darnesha Carter and D. Matthew Allen, writing for The National Law
Review report that a federal court in Massachusetts recently denied
class status for a group of individuals caught driving in the fast
lane. Finding that the named plaintiff failed to demonstrate
typicality and predominance, the District of Massachusetts denied
certification of a class of plaintiffs who received speeding
tickets under a Massachusetts regulation.
The plaintiff alleged that the Board of Selectmen of Hingham,
Massachusetts, posted and enforced speed limit signs without
complying with standardized procedures necessary to make the signs
legally enforceable. He argued that the municipality failed to
conduct a traffic engineering study and issue a "special speed
regulation" as required by Massachusetts law. He sought to certify
a class of persons who received speeding tickets for violating any
speed limit signs for which no such regulation was issued.
The court denied class certification because the plaintiff failed
to establish typicality and predominance. On typicality, it held
that the plaintiff's claim was not typical of the claims of other
putative class members who received speeding citations at locations
other than the location where the plaintiff received his citation.
The court explained that "the class includes individuals cited on
25 separate roadways under different speed limit signs subject to
different erection and endorsement proceedings which, in turn,
evidence (or do not evidence) each sign's illegal[lity]." Thus, the
plaintiff's pursuit of his claim would not "advance the interests
of the putative class members challenging different speed limit
signs posted at different times on different roadways and
supported, if at all, by a speed study."
The court found predominance to be lacking for a similar reason.
Because the putative class members were cited on different roadways
and subject to different speed limit signs, the "only way to
establish defendants' liability to each class member would be to
examine each [sign] individually, given that each sign's legality
requires a separate and independent engineering study." The court
also noted that additional individualized inquiries existed. Under
Massachusetts law, in certain designated areas, a fallback speed
limit rule applies even if the posted speed limit sign is
unauthorized. The fallback provision, applicable in school zones,
business districts, and thickly settled areas, provides that where
a speed limit sign is unenforceable, a driver must drive at a speed
that is "reasonable and proper." Hence, the defendants would have
had authority to issue a citation to putative class members driving
in such areas at a rate that was not reasonable and proper, even if
the speed limit sign in the area was unenforceable. But
individualized proof would be required to establish whether a given
putative class member's rate of speed in such a circumstance was
reasonable and proper.
Notably, this case constitutes at least the fourth time a plaintiff
had to pump the brakes on a challenge to Massachusetts' speed limit
signs. All prior attempts were dismissed.
Belezos v. Bd. of Selectmen of Hingham, No. 1:17-cv-12570 (D. Mass.
Nov. 27, 2019). [GN]
HKA ENTERPRISES: $150K Laywer Fees Awarded in Moorhead FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH MOORHEAD, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HKA ENTERPRISES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00265 (D. S.C.), Judge Donald C.
Coggins, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Spartanburg Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion on
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards.
The Court held a Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion on Dec. 3, 2019.
The Plaintiff requests (i) an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of one-third of the total amount of the settlement, or
$150,000; (ii) reimbursement of Costs expended in the amount of
$14,699; and (iii) an incentive award to Plaintiff Moorhead in the
amount of $5,000.
Judge Coggins finds that (i) the Plaintiff's requested award of
one-third of the total settlement amount is a reasonable percentage
of the fund established for the benefit of the class; (ii) the
request for Costs and the amount of such costs reasonable under the
circumstances; and (iii) an incentive award to Plaintiff Moorhead
in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate in light of their efforts on
behalf of the class.
Therefore, Judge Coggins granted the Plaintiff's Motion. He
awarded (i) an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $150,000;
(ii) reimbursement of Costs expended in the amount of $14,699; and
(iii) an incentive award to Plaintiff Moorhead in the amount of
$5,000.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ig5d3U from Leagle.com.
Joseph Moorhead, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by David
Andrew Maxfield, David Maxfield Attorney LLC, Jared M. Hartman --
Jared@SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com -- Semnar & Hartman LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew Ryan Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer
Wilson Co LPA & Michael J. Boyle, Jr. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com --
Meyer Wilson Co LPA.
HKA Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Monrose
Moore -- jennifer.moore@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak
and Stewart PC, pro hac vice & Lucas James Asper --
lucas.asper@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart.
HKA ENTERPRISES: Settlement in Moorhead Suit Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH MOORHEAD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HKA ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00265 (D. S.C.), Judge Donald C.
Coggins, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District South
Carolina, Spartanburg Division, finally approved the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action
and over the Parties, including all members of the following
Settlement Class from the Court's Preliminary Approval Order:
a. Class A: All natural persons residing within the United
States and its Territories with respect to whom, within two years
prior to the filing of the action and extending through the
resolution of this action, HKA procured or caused to be procured a
consumer report for employment purposes based on a disclosure form
from one or more of the following background check vendors: AWSI,
Backgroundchecks.com, ESS, and GIS. The parties agree that there
are 3,634 members of Settlement Class A as identified by HKA.
b. Class B: All natural persons residing within the United
States and its Territories: (1) within two years prior to the
filing of this action and extending through the resolution of the
action; (2) who were the subject of a background report procured or
caused to be procured by HKA based on a disclosure form other than
that from the following background check vendors: AWSI,
Backgroundchecks.com, ESS (the vendor applicable to Moorhead), and
GIS; (3) that was used to make an adverse employment decision
regarding such employee or applicant for employment; and (4) who
HKA failed to notify of a forthcoming adverse action and/or failed
to provide the applicant an understandable copy of his or her
consumer report or a copy of the FCRA summary of rights before it
took such adverse action. The parties agree that there are 68
individuals who are members of Settlement Class B as identified by
HKA.
b. Class C: All natural persons residing within the United
States and its Territories: (1) within two years prior to the
filing of this action and extending through the resolution of the
action; (2) who were the subject of a background report procured or
caused to be procured by HKA based on a disclosure form from one or
more of the following background check vendors: AWSI,
Backgroundchecks.com, ESS (the vendor applicable to Moorhead), and
GIS; (3) that was used to make an adverse employment decision
regarding such employee or applicant for employment; and (4) who
HKA failed to notify of a forthcoming adverse action and/or failed
to provide the applicant an understandable copy of his or her
consumer report or a copy of the FCRA summary of rights before it
took such adverse action. The parties agree that there are 73
individuals who are members of Settlement Class C as identified by
HKA.
Judge Coggins finally approved the Settlement Agreement and the
Settlement contemplated, and found that the terms constitute, in
all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as to all
the Settlement Class Members.
The Judge dismissed, with prejudice and without leave to amend and
without costs to any party, the Action and all claims against HKA
in the Action by current and former Plaintiffs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Final Order is
available at https://is.gd/6cDhbg from Leagle.com.
Joseph Moorhead, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by David
Andrew Maxfield, David Maxfield Attorney LLC, Jared M. Hartman --
Jared@SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com -- Semnar & Hartman LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew Ryan Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer
Wilson Co LPA & Michael J. Boyle, Jr. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com --
Meyer Wilson Co LPA.
HKA Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Monrose
Moore -- jennifer.moore@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak
and Stewart PC, pro hac vice & Lucas James Asper --
lucas.asper@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart.
IBEAT INC: Camp Drug Store Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IBeat, Inc. The case
is styled as Camp Drug Store, Inc., an Illinois Coporation,
Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. IBeat, Inc. doing business as: 100
Plus, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00559-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 24,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
iBeat is a health tech startup empowering people to be fearless,
explore, and live longer lives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq.
Lemberg Law, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (203) 653-3424
Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com
JA RULE: Officially Dismissed from Fyre Festival Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Lamb, writing for UpNewsInfo, reports that Ja Rule cannot
escape the epic fiasco of the Fyre Festival and jumped on social
media to ask his critics if they would be so tough on him if he
were white.
"All of you who won't let the Fyre leave * I have a question . . .
if I was the one who was 6 years in prison for fraud and Billy was
FREE OF ANY FALSE saying that the white man is still guilty . . .
I doubt it a lot . . . it will be your own person, I swear!, "he
tweeted.
In November, Ja Rule was officially dismissed on Jan. 6 from a $
100 million class action lawsuit filed by Fyre festival goers,
exempting him from any legal irregularity. [GN]
JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Gibson Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaguar Land Rover
North America, LLC. The case is styled as Gary Gibson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jaguar
Land Rover North America, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00769-CJC-GJS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC was founded in 2001. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing or assembling
of complete passenger automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Yale Basser, Esq.
Jordan L Lurie, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 436-6496
Fax: (917) 463-1044
Email: abasser@pomlaw.com
jllurie@pomlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian Takahashi, Esq.
Bowman and Brooke LLP
970 West 190th Street Suite 700
Torrance, CA 90502
Phone: (310) 768-3068
Fax: (310) 719-1019
Email: brian.takahashi@bowmanandbrooke.com
- and -
Michael L Kidney, Esq.
Hogan Lovells LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Phone: (202) 637-5883
Fax: (202) 637-5910
Email: michael.kidney@hoganlovells.com
JAMES MAYER: Wins Final Approval of Latteri Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph A. Dickson issued an order granting final approval
of class action settlement agreement in the lawsuit captioned
LORAINE LATTERI, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. JAMES MAYER and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:17-cv-13707-JAD
(D.N.J.).
On September 17, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the class
settlement in this action where the Plaintiff alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Court certified the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes, appointed a Settlement
Administrator, approved the Plaintiff as Settlement Class
Representative, and appointed Yongmoon Kim, Esq., of the Kim Law
Firm LLC as Settlement Class Counsel.
The Settlement Class certified by the Court was defined as:
All natural persons with an address within the State of New
Jersey, to whom James Mayer sent one or more collection
letters from December 27, 2016, to August 8, 2018, in an
attempt to collect a consumer debt on behalf of Reliable
Collection Inc.
The Settlement Administrator has reported to the Court that: the
mailing was generally successful; that no Settlement Class member
has raised an objection to the settlement; and that no Settlement
Class member requested to be excluded from the Settlement Class.
The Court has not received any objections to the settlement.
As set forth in paragraph 8(b) of the Settlement Agreement, the
Defendant shall fund the bank account to be established by the
Settlement Administrator in the amount of $4,450 within seven (7)
days from the date this Order is entered.
Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, the
Settlement Administrator shall mail each Settlement Class member
their check according to the formula and process set forth
paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement.
As set forth in paragraph 8(e) of the Settlement Agreement, funds
from uncashed checks shall be paid as a cy pres award to Northeast
New Jersey Legal Services, Inc.
For efforts on behalf of the Class and to settle individual claims,
the Defendant shall pay $2,000 to Plaintiff Loraine Latteri in the
manner set forth in paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement within
seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
Upon entry of this Order and final approval of the settlement, the
Plaintiff and each member of the Settlement Class, who has not been
excluded will release the Defendant as set forth the Settlement
Agreement.
The Defendant shall pay Class Counsel's fees and costs in the
amount of $36,950, which payment includes costs and expenses
(including the expenses of the Settlement Administrator), time
already spent and time to be spent attending hearings, and the
monitoring of the settlement. This amount does not include any
time, if necessary, to enforce any breach of the settlement
agreement. The fees are in addition to the settlement benefits
each Settlement Class member will be receiving and are the sole
property of Class Counsel, not the Plaintiff or the class.
Final Judgment is entered in this action, consistent with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement. This Action against the Defendant is
dismissed with prejudice, but the Court shall retain exclusive and
continuing jurisdiction over the action and all parties to
interpret and enforce the terms, conditions and obligations of this
Settlement Agreement.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $6.3M Payout in Infants' Tylenol Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
KJ Hiramoto, writing for ABC Action News, reports that if you
purchased Infants' Tylenol in the last five-plus years, you may be
entitled to a cash payment.
Tylenol's parent company Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $6.3
million as part of a class action settlement about the packaging
and advertising of the said product. According to a press release
from KCC Class Action Services LLC, the lawsuit claimed the
Infants' Tylenol packaging deceived customers into believing that
the medications were "unique/specifically formulated for infants."
But instead, the lawsuit alleges the bottle contains liquid
acetaminophen, which is the same concentration in Children's
Tylenol, leading buyers into overpaying for Infants' Tylenol.
Johnson & Johnson denies the allegations of deception but
ultimately reached a settlement to pay customers $2.15 for every
one and two full ounce bottle of Infants' Tylenol purchased.
Customers can receive up to $15.05, or seven bottles, in the cash
payment.
The cash payment applies to customers who bought Infants' Tylenol
from October 3, 2014 to January 6, 2020.
You can click here to access the claim form. The claim form must be
submitted by April 13, 2020.
Over the last year, Johnson & Johnson had been at the center of
controversy over its role in the opioid crisis. In August of 2019,
a judge in Oklahoma found Johnson & Johnson liable in the state's
opioid drug crisis and ordered the company to pay $572 million to
help abate the problem. [GN]
K&K HOLDINGS: Honeycutt Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Honeycutt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. K&K Holdings of Fort Wayne, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00007, (N.D. Ind., January 2, 2020), seeks unpaid
wages and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law.
K&K Holdings of Fort Wayne operates as "The Harem," an
adult-oriented entertainment located at 1002 North Coliseum
Boulevard Fort Wayne, Indiana where Benton worked as a female
exotic dancer. She claims to be misclassified as an "independent
contractor" rather than as an employee thus denied the required
wages and overtime. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Office: (301) 587–9373
Fax: (240) 839-9142
Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
- and -
Michael P. Misch, Esq.
Bradley P. Colborn, Esq.
ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C.
131 South Taylor Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Telephone: (574) 288-1510
Facsimile: (574) 288-1650
Email: misch@aaklaw.com
colborn@aaklaw.com
KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: G.T. Files Civil Rights Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kanawha County
Schools et al. The case is styled as G. T. by his Parents Michelle
and Jamie T. on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, The Arc of West Virginia, Plaintiffs v. Kanawha County
Schools and, Ron Duerring, superintendent, Kanawha County Schools,
in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00057
(S.D.W.Va., Jan. 24, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights.
Kanawha County Schools is the operating school district within
Kanawha County, West Virginia. It is governed by the Kanawha County
Board of Education.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blaire L. Malkin, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
P. O. Box 1713
Charleston, WV 25326-1713
Phone: (304) 345-2200
Fax: (304) 345-5104
Email: blaire.malkin@usdoj.gov
LANDS' END: Employees File Class Actions Over Uniforms
------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press, writing for The Lewiston Tribune, reports that
hundreds of Delta Air Lines employees have filed a pair of class
action lawsuits against Wisconsin-based clothing manufacturer
Lands' End, claiming that uniforms they are required to wear are
causing serious medical problems.
The first lawsuit against the Atlanta-based airline was filed in
October with a second on Dec. 31 in federal court in Madison, the
Wisconsin State Journal reported Jan. 3. Lands' End is based in
Dodgeville, a small town about 120 miles west of Milwaukee.
The lawsuits allege that the uniforms, created by fashion designer
Zac Posen and unveiled in May 2018, have caused numerous Delta
employees to break out in skin rashes, suffer hair loss, low white
blood cell counts, migraines, cause breathing difficulties and
other medical problems. The lawsuits claim that Lands' End was
negligent in issuing the uniforms and failing to recall them once
problems were reported.
Lands' End spokeswoman Tricia Dudley declined to comment, citing
the ongoing litigation.
The lawsuits claim that the chemicals and finishes used to create
high-stretch, wrinkle- and stain-resistant, waterproof, anti-static
and deodorizing garments for the uniforms led to employees' health
problems.
Delta has more than 60,000 uniformed workers worldwide. [GN]
LOANME INC: Steptoe & Johnson Attorneys Discuss CIPA Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie A. Sheridan, Esq., Meegan Brooks, Esq., and Daniel W.
Podair, Esq., of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that while most consumers ignore "this call may be recorded"
disclosures when they call customer service numbers, the absence of
such disclosures has been a goldmine for plaintiffs. Dozens of
class action lawsuits have been filed against businesses for
failing to provide these innocuous disclosures. These suits are
generally brought pursuant to California's Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA), Penal Code Section 632.7, which allows for steep statutory
penalties of $5,000 per customer service call recorded over the
preceding year.
On Dec. 20, 2019, the Court of Appeal in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.,
E069752, 2019 WL 6974386 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Dec. 20, 2019) ruled,
"Section 632.7 applies only to persons who receive (or intercept)
communications without all parties consent" and "does not prohibit
the participants in a phone call from intentionally recording it."
Rather, the statute "prohibits only third-party eavesdroppers from
intentionally recording telephonic communications involving at
least one cellular or cordless telephone." Smith deals a major blow
to plaintiffs' CIPA litigation, which generally involve a consumer
who called a customer service line and allegedly did not receive a
"this call may be recorded disclosure." [GN]
LOUISIANA: E.B. Moves to Certify Classes of Clerks & Dist. Attys.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled E.B., D.W., and T.R., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. JEFF LANDRY, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF LOUISIANA, in his official capacity; DOUG WELBORN, CLERK OF THE
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH COURT, in his official capacity, as a
representative of a DEFENDANT CLASS comprised of all Parish Clerks
in the State of Louisiana, in their official capacities; HILLAR
MOORE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, in his
official capacity, as a representative of a DEFENDANT CLASS
comprised of all District Attorneys in the State of Louisiana, in
their official capacities, Case No. 3:19-cv-00862-JWD-RLB (M.D.
La.), the Plaintiffs move to certify two Defendant classes:
1. All the Clerks of the Parishes of the State of Louisiana
who enforce and apply the Louisiana expungement statutes,
including collecting expungement fees at filing, without
waiving fees for expungement seekers who cannot afford to
pay them; and
2. All the District Attorneys of the Parishes of the State of
Louisiana who enforce and apply the Louisiana expungement
statutes without waiving fees for expungement seekers who
cannot afford to pay them.
The Plaintiffs contend that the two classes of Defendant Clerks and
District Attorneys, along with Defendant Landry, apply and enforce
the expungement statutes in the same unconstitutional manner--they
charge the same fees, collect them in the same way, and ultimately
prevent indigent people with eligible record events from accessing
expungements.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate Doug Welborn of East
Baton Rouge Parish as class representative of the named defendant
class of Parish Clerks and Hillar Moore of East Baton Rouge Parish
as class representative of the named defendant class of District
Attorneys.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
Jim Davy, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
400 7th St. NW, Suite 602
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 505-2058
E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
jdavy@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
- and -
Kelly E. Orians, Esq.
THE FIRST 72+
2915 Perdido St.
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (303) 946-5375
E-mail: Kelly@first72plus.org
MARRIOTT INT'L: Given More Time to Answer Amended Hall Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TODD HALL, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01715-H-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California extended the
time for the Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the first
amended complaint to Jan. 10, 2020.
On Sept. 9, 2019, Hall filed a class action complaint against
Defendant Marriott. On Nov. 1, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.
Instead of opposing the Defendant's motion, the Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint on Nov. 22, 2019. On Nov. 26, 2019, the
parties filed a joint motion to extend the time for the Defendant
to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint.
For good cause shown, Judge Huff granted the parties' joint motion.
The Defendant's answer or response to the First Amended Complaint
is due on Jan. 10, 2020. Because the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint supersedes his original complaint, the Judge denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot.
Additionally, she vacated the motion hearing scheduled for Dec. 13,
2020.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pkwjDH from Leagle.com.
Todd Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lilach Halperin --
lilach@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
PLC, Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron, Robert L. Teel, Law Office of Robert L. Teel &
Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald
Marron.
Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy B.
Alderfer -- aalderfer@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor & Bryan Mosca --
bmosca@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice.
MATTEL INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in the securities class action lawsuit against:
Mattel, Inc. (MAT)
Class Period: 10/26/2017 - 8/8/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mat/
If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss,
you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing
Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Tel: 1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]
MERIT MEDICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Merit Medical Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MMSI). Stockholders have until the deadline to petition
the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMSI)
Class Period: February 26, 2019 to October 30, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 3, 2020
On July 25, 2019, Merit announced disappointing second quarter 2019
financial results and cut its fiscal 2019 sales and earnings per
share outlook. Defendants attributed these reductions to a variety
of factors, including "slower than anticipated conversion and
uptake of acquired products."
On this news, the Company's stock price declined more than 25%.
Then, on October 30, 2019, the Company announced its third quarter
2019 financial results, reporting adjusted earnings per share well
below consensus estimates, and slashed fiscal 2019 revenue and
earnings per share guidance by 20%. Furthermore, defendants stated
that, in addition to the fiscal 2019 guidance cut, "2020 guidance
[was] off the table" until they had reasonable confidence in their
forecasting ability, and reported significant operational issues in
all aspects of Merit's business, conceding that many of these
failures were due to their "own overestimation and forecasting."
Following these disclosures, Merit's stock price declined more than
29%, to close at $20.66 per share on October 31, 2019.
The complaint, filed on December 3, 2019, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose adverse information concerning Merit's
business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose
that: (a) the integrations of Cianna and Vascular Insights,
including their products, sales people, and R&D facilities, had
caused operational disruptions and reduced sales and were months
behind schedule; (b) sales of acquired company products had slowed
substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular
for Vascular Insights products which, as late as July 2019, had
zero orders during fiscal 2019; and (c) in light of the foregoing,
the Company's reported financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and 2020
was made without a reasonable basis. As a result of defendants'
material misrepresentations and omissions, Merit stock traded at
artificially inflated prices of more than $62 per share.
For more information on the Merit Medical class action go to:
https://bespc.com/mmsi
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.
Contact:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Phone: (212) 355-4648
Website: www.bespc.com
Email: investigations@bespc.com
fortunato@bespc.com
walker@bespc.com
[GN]
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Mohawk
Industries, Inc. (MHK). Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
MHK Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mohawk-industries-inc-loss-form?prid=5210&wire=1
Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK)
MHK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 28, 2017 -
July 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 3, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mohawk-industries-inc-loss-form?prid=5210&wire=1
The filed complaint alleges that, faced with slowing demand for its
conventional flooring products, the Company engaged in a scheme to
inflate its revenues and earnings by booking fictitious sales of
those products. This practice is known as channel stuffing and was
used by Mohawk to hide severely declining demand for conventional
flooring products. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements about Mohawk's sales growth and
the demand for the Company's conventional flooring products.
Defendants also reassured investors about Mohawk's increasing
accounts receivable and inventory levels by falsely attributing
those increases to external factors like rising raw material costs
and inflation. As a result of these misrepresentations, shares of
Mohawk's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
MOWI ASA: Canada Suit Over Price Fixing Seeks Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Cliff White, writing for Seafood Source, reports that facing
criminal investigations by the European Commission and the U.S.
Department of Justice as well as a bevy of civil lawsuits filed in
American courts, four Norwegian salmon-farming companies now must
deal with additional civil action in Canada.
A lawsuit filed on behalf of salmon consumer Irene Breckon of
Elliot Lake, Ontario, was filed on Jan. 3 in Federal Court in
Toronto, according to the CBC. The suit seeks up to CAD500 million
(US382 million, EUR343.9 million), alleging Mowi, SalMar, Leroy
Seafood, Grieg Seafood, engaged in a price-fixing agreement that
resulted in higher prices for salmon products they sold in Canada.
Breckon's lawyers are seeking class-action status for the suit,
with the aim of including all consumers who purchased farmed salmon
produced by the named parties after 1 July, 2015.
"The defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators control the
Canadian salmon market through their market share," Toronto-based
Sotos LLP said in its statement of claim.
The allegations are based on an ongoing investigation by the
European Commission that came to light when authorities raided
several facilities belonging to the companies named in the suit.
Throughout 2019, a series of lawsuits were filed in U.S. civil
courts, while the U.S. Justice Department announced its own
investigation in November 2019.
In emailed statements to the CBC, Grieg Seafood and Mowi
acknowledged they were aware of the Canadian lawsuit.
"We are not aware of any anti-competitive behavior, not in Norway,
the E.U., the U.S.A. or Canada," Grieg Seafood's Global
Communications Manager Kristina Furnes said. "We are fully
collaborating with European and American authorities in this
matter. We will follow up the lawsuit accordingly."
Mowi denied the existence of any conspiracy or its involvement in
illegal behavior related to the allegations.
"Mowi has not been involved in price-fixing or other
anti-competitive conduct, and believe that the allegations are
unfounded," Mowi Group Communications Director Ola Helge Hjetland
said. [GN]
MYLAN N.V.: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in the securities class action lawsuit against:
Mylan N.V. (MYL)
Class Period: 5/9/2018 - 5/6/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-myl/
If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss,
you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing
Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Tel: 1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]
NATROL LLC: Jensen's Bid to Certify Class of Consumers Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled JAIME JENSEN
v. NATROL, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-03193-VC (N.D. Cal.).
Judge Chhabria states that for the reasons discussed at the
hearing, the motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice to filing a renewed motion on a stronger evidentiary
record.
According to the Order, Ms. Jensen appears to concede (correctly)
that Natrol is not liable to people, who take biotin supplements to
alleviate biotinidase deficiency or other rare biotin-related
genetic disorders. Yet she seeks to certify a class of all people,
who purchased Natrol's biotin supplements--including people, who
have those rare disorders.
"Such a class cannot be certified. Under Ninth Circuit law, it
must be at least 'possible' that each class member suffered an
injury at the hands of the defendant," Judge Chhabria opines,
citing Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 n.6 (9th
Cir. 2016). "More generally, the class definition must be
'reasonably co-extensive' with the plaintiff's 'chosen theory of
liability.'"
If the proposed class includes a distinct subset of members who
were not misled, who were not injured, who could not possibly
recover, and who would be easy to weed out at the front end, then
the proposed class membership does not "fit the theory of legal
liability," Judge Chhabria notes. "This is why, for example,
classes are typically defined to include only people whose claims
arose within the applicable limitations period," Judge Chhabria
adds.
There would presumably be nothing wrong with excluding the small
number of people with biotinidase deficiencies from the class
definition, and requiring class members to attest in claim forms to
the fact that they do not suffer from the disorders that require
the use of biotin supplements, Judge Chhabria notes, citing Briseno
v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th Cir. 2017). "But
on the current record, excluding people with biotinidase
deficiencies would create another problem for Jensen: her proposed
measure of aggregate damages is a full refund of all money from
sales of Natrol's biotin supplements nationwide. If purchasers
with biotinidase deficiencies are not entitled to refunds and are
therefore excluded from the class, this approach to damages is
likely inadequate," Judge Chhabria held.
According to the Order, Ms. Jensen suggests that since only 0.00138
percent of people in the general population have biotinidase
deficiencies, the Court could, in awarding class damages, simply
deduct that percentage from the total amount of money from all
Natrol's retail sales.
"But that is facile. There is no basis for assuming that the
biotinidase deficiency rate within the universe of people who
purchase biotin supplements is similar to the biotinidase
deficiency rate within the general population--after all, the
evidence in the record (not to mention common sense) suggests that
some people with biotinidase deficiencies are told by their doctors
to use over-the-counter biotin supplements, Judge Chhabria opines.
"And Jensen has provided no evidence from which the Court or a jury
could arrive at a reasonable estimate of the percentage of Natrol's
sales that went to biotinidase-deficient customers."
A case management conference is scheduled for February 12, 2020, at
10:00 a.m. for the purpose of setting a schedule for adjudication
of a renewed motion for class certification. A joint case
management statement is due seven days prior. The statement need
not follow the standard format required by the local rules, Judge
Chhabria notes.[CC]
NAVISTAR INC: $135M Emissions Settlement Has Interim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Channick, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
Lisle-based Navistar has received initial court approval for a $135
million settlement resolving claims over allegedly defective
emissions systems.
A Chicago federal judge has given initial approval to Navistar's
agreement to pay truck owners and lessees $135 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit over allegedly defective engine emission
systems.
The settlement, pending final court approval, ends a lengthy court
battle for the Lisle-based manufacturer, which built thousands of
2011 to 2014 model year commercial trucks with an alleged emissions
design flaw that resulted in breakdowns and engine damage.
More than 66,500 International trucks equipped with certain
MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter diesel engines are included in the class.
Truck owners and lessees can choose from three payout options,
either up to $2,500 cash per truck, a rebate of up to $10,000
toward a new truck or up to $15,000 in covered damages per truck.
"We're very happy with the result we reached for the class of
Navistar truck owners and lessees," Adam Levitt, a Chicago attorney
representing the plaintiffs, said January 9. "We believe the
settlement provides true and meaningful relief and we look forward
to the ongoing claims process and being able to distribute money to
class members."
All owners and lessees of affected vehicles must file their claims
by May 11, with payouts expected to begin in the summer, Levitt
said.
Navistar has been grappling with the fallout of the allegedly
defective emissions systems for years. Built to comply with U.S.
emissions rules that took effect in 2010, the company chose exhaust
gas recirculation over selective catalytic reduction, a decision
that led to alleged engine problems.
In 2016, Navistar paid investors $9.1 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit and a $7.5 million penalty to settle Security
and Exchange Commission charges it misled investors about
developing an advanced technology truck engine that could be
certified to meet U.S. emission standards.
Navistar spent more than $700 million developing the engine before
abandoning the project. The emissions failure led to the
resignation of CEO Daniel Ustian in August 2012.
The lawsuit on behalf of truck owners and lessees was initially
filed in 2014. The proposed settlement was reached in May.
Navistar took a charge of $159 million in the second quarter of
2019 to cover costs associated with the settlement.
On Thursday, January 9, Navistar spokeswoman Lyndi McMillan emailed
a statement issued last year saying the proposed settlement
accelerated the company's efforts to "move past" the emissions
issue, but had no comment on the court's approval. [GN]
NET 1 UEPS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Net 1 UEPS Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: UEPS). Stockholders have until the deadline to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: UEPS)
Class Period: September 12, 2018 to November 8, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 3, 2020
On November 8, 2018, UEPS filed a Form 8-K with the SEC under item
4.02(a) for non-reliance on previously issued financial
statements.
On this news, the price of the Company's stock price declined
$2.16, from a closing price of $7.00 per share on November 8, 2018
to a closing price of $4.84 per share on November 9, 2018, a drop
of approximately 30 percent.
The complaint, filed on December 5, 2019, alleges that throughout
the Class Period UEPS made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting; (2) the Company had
misclassified its investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited; (3) the
Company's financial statements for the fiscal year 2018 were
overstating its income; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
For more information on the Net 1 UEPS class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ueps
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.
Contact:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Phone: (212) 355-4648
Website: www.bespc.com
Email: investigations@bespc.com
fortunato@bespc.com
walker@bespc.com
[GN]
NORMAN BARWIN: Inspections of Fertility Clinic Found Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Pfeffer, writing for CBC News, reports that federal
inspections of the clinic run by the now-disgraced fertility doctor
Norman Barwin found "troubling" problems with the clinic dating
back to 1999, raising concerns about whether the oversight system
is failing to protect Canadian patients.
Barwin's medical licence was revoked in June by the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, after determining he had used
his own sperm or the wrong sperm in helping families conceive more
than 70 children at his clinic since he began offering fertility
services in the 1970s.
Health Canada is responsible for inspecting the safety of donor
eggs and sperm.
Health Canada inspection records obtained through an Access to
Information request suggest Barwin's clinic repeatedly violated
federal regulations including the mishandling of donor sperm,
missing sperm, missing proof of safety checks, mislabelling and
missing patient consent forms.
1999 all sperm quarantined
In the first inspection in 1999, all of the donated sperm stored at
the clinic -- foreign and domestic -- had to be quarantined because
the clinic could provide none of the necessary paperwork required
by the law, including whether the sperm had passed safety
assessments for diseases like HIV and chlamydia.
"You must immediately quarantine all non-compliant semen currently
in stock and cease distribution," said the letter to Barwin
following the inspection on June 25, 1999.
No follow-up document was shared with CBC on whether he complied
with the order, and the incident was not mentioned in the following
inspection in 2001.
In 2002, an inspection in July found similar problems in the
handling of donor sperm.
None of the donor sperm files reviewed included the necessary
paperwork assessing the safety of donor sperm. Inspectors noted
missing sperm from the recorded inventory. In a couple of
instances, sperm vials were found no longer viable after falling to
the bottom of the holding canister. Patient consent forms necessary
to use sperm were also missing.
Inspections 'troubling'
And yet in both 1999 and 2002, Barwin passed the inspection as
"compliant."
He finally failed a September 2010 inspection, which came weeks
after news two families were suing Barwin for using the wrong sperm
used to conceive their children. Barwin denied the allegations at
the time and was asking the court to dismiss the cases.
Inspectors made six "observations" that required "corrective
actions" from Barwin -- with three featuring a risk rating of
"critical."
Once again, problems included missing evidence of testing for
infectious diseases, missing consent forms, missing donor-sperm
vials and labelling problems.
At follow-up inspection in late 2011, inspectors noted that
Barwin's clinic continued to see patients.
When the College of Physicians and Surgeons began investigating
complaints against Barwin, he volunteered in February 2012 to stop
offering IVF and artificial insemination services at his Ottawa
clinic, and his medical licence was suspended by the college in
2013, though not revoked until last year.
Over the years, at no time did Health Canada share its inspection
information with the college.
"What we see is a lack of compliance dating back," said Dr. Arthur
Leader, a fertility expert who sat on the Canadian Standards
Association committee developing updated rules for assisted human
reproduction that come into effect next month.
Leader reviewed the documents obtained by CBC and noted that no
"punitive measures," and no efforts to restrict Dr. Barwin's
practice were ever considered.
Could Health Canada shut violators down?
"What was also troubling was the fact that the inspectors did a
very superficial assessment of what was going on," said Leader,
though even it was found, "the [Barwin] records are very sloppy, in
that it's very difficult to follow where the sperm went and to
which person. And potentially they could have said -- given that --
that the operation should cease."
Leader said Health Canada did have the ability to shut Barwin's
clinic down if he did not comply with the regulations, however, he
said the inspection process was in its very early stages, and
inspectors may not have had the confidence to use that power.
Health Canada did not provide a response to our report in time for
this publication.
However, new legislation affecting "compliance and enforcement"
that goes into effect next month recognizes "the need to strengthen
the rules for assisted human reproduction."
Families of 77 children sue
To date, a class action lawsuit by families against Barwin claims
he used the wrong sperm, including his own sperm, in the conception
of now 77 children, according to Peter Cronyn, the lawyer
representing families.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Cronyn said the failings of oversight have left families with no
choice but to sue to find a remedy.
He notes the Barwin victims fall into a regulatory gap, with moral
and ethical harms beyond whether donor sperm is "safe."
He describes how fathers — after DNA testing — have had to tell
their children that they are not their biological dad. He said
there are parents who still don't know who their father is because
of mix-ups. And there are 11 children who have tested to find
Norman Barwin himself is the father.
"The problems that I've seen now... It's mind boggling," said
Cronyn, "I think that we kind of just started doing this without
thinking about the implications, the possibilities of something
like this happening. And so it was, in my view, a regulatory
failing."
Role of the province overdue
One of the things aimed at closing the gap will be provincial
oversight suggested by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario two years ago.
It would mean someone would be inspecting the fertility clinic for
more than just how it handles the safety of donated sperm and eggs.
Quebec already has a similar inspection system in place.
Arthur Leader sat on the CPSO committee that contributed to the new
rules.
"But unfortunately it's now been two years since the regulations
were developed by the college and no effort to introduce
legislation in Ontario that would complete the oversight," he
said.
Leader said a more robust federal inspection system, along with a
provincial regulation for clinics, could have made a difference in
the case of Norman Barwin.
"I think if these two things had been in place 20 years ago, we may
have been able to avoid some of the horrible impacts that occurred
with the lack of oversight."
The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care of Ontario said in a
statement to CBC the new system would include "a site visit by the
inspection team, a review of records, examination of the physical
premises, and observation of the procedures performed by
physicians."
The statement said the ministry "expects to finalize its review of
the proposal in the coming months." [GN]
NOSCO INC: Faces Bishop Suit Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briona Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NOSCO, INC., Case No. 2020CH00952 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., Jan. 24, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions
in collecting, storing, and using the Plaintiff's biometric
identifiers and biometric information, in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the
Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds of its employees (and former
employees), who are being required to "clock in" with their
fingerprints, the Plaintiff alleges.
According to the complaint, the BIPA confers on the Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated Illinois residents a right to know of
such risks, which are inherently presented by the collection and
storage of biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks will
persist after termination of their employment. Yet, the Defendant
never adequately informed the Plaintiff or the Class of its
biometrics collection practices, never obtained the requisite
written consent from Plaintiff or the Class regarding its biometric
practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction
policies to the Plaintiff or the Class.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from
further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to
recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized
collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in
violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Illinois.
Nosco, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its headquarters
located at 2199 Delany Road, in Gurnee, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.283.3814
Fax: 773.496.8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
ONTEL PRODUCTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ontel Products
Corporation. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Ontel Products Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00401 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Ontel Products Corporation manufactures, markets, and distributes
consumer products. The Company offers fitness, health and beauty,
household, cleaning, kitchen products, toys, and kid's products, as
well as provides home fitness equipment, electric floor sweepers,
and swivel sweepers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
OPERA LIMITED: Faces Brown Suit Over Drop in Securities' Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leon M. Brown, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OPERA LIMITED, YAHUI ZHOU, FRODE JACOBSEN, HONGYI ZHOU,
and HAN FANG, Case No. 1:20-cv-00674 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2020), is
brought to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising from the decline of the price of Opera's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, other
than the Defendants, that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a)
Opera American depositary shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering commenced on July 27,
2018; and/or (b) Opera securities between July 27, 2018, and
January 15, 2020, both dates inclusive.
On June 29, 2018, Opera filed a registration statement on Form F-1
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the
SEC on July 26, 2018. On July 27, 2018, Opera filed a prospectus
for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of
the Registration Statement. That same day, Opera's ADSs began
publicly trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the
ticker symbol "OPRA" at the IPO price of $12.00 per ADS.
On August 9, 2018, Opera completed its IPO, issuing 9,600,000 ADSs
priced at $12.00 per share, raising approximately $115.2 million in
proceeds before underwriting discounts and commissions, and other
expenses.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.
Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the Offering Documents and the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Opera's sustainable growth and market
opportunity for its browser applications was significantly
overstated; (ii) the Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise
controlled loan services applications and/or businesses relied on
predatory lending practices; (iii) all the foregoing, once
revealed, were reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Opera's financial prospects, especially with respect to its
lending applications' continued availability on the Google Play
Store; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the
Defendants' statements were materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.
On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
asserting that Hindenburg had "a 12-month price target of $2.60 on
Opera, representing a 70% downside."
On this news, Opera's ADS price fell $1.69 per share, or 18.74%, to
close at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020.
As of the time this Complaint was filed, Opera ADSs continue to
trade below the IPO price, damaging investors, the Plaintiff
asserts. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
Opera' securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Opera ADSs pursuant and/or purchased or
otherwise acquired Opera securities at artificially inflated
prices.
Opera, through its subsidiaries, provides mobile and PC web browser
applications in Ireland, Russia, and internationally, under the
Opera Mini, Opera for Android, Opera Touch, and Opera for Computers
brand names.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
OTTO BREMER TRUST: Employees File Class Action vs. 3 Trustees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Melo, writing for Grand Folks Herald, reports that
sixteen employees of St. Paul-based Bremer Bank have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the three trustees of the Otto Bremer
Trust, the philanthropy that serves as parent company to the
financial institution.
The lawsuit, filed in Ramsey County District Court, accuses the
trustees of trying to seize control of the bank through illegal
means and unlawfully transfer voting rights to outside shareholders
intent on replacing the bank's board of directors.
The suit, which seeks to enjoin the trustees from making further
transfers of potential voting shares, was filed on behalf of more
than 1,000 "Class A" shareholders, including the bank's current
employees and former employees who invested in Bremer's 401(k)
retirement fund.
The legal action represents the latest salvo in an escalating war
over bank ownership. On Oct. 28, the three trustees transferred
approximately 37 percent of Bremer Financial's voting stock to 19
out-of-state hedge funds, with the goal of replacing the Bremer
Financial board of directors and putting the bank up for sale.
In November, officials with the Bremer Financial Corp. filed a
165-page lawsuit in Ramsey County District Court against S. Brian
Lipschultz, Daniel Reardon and Charlotte Johnson, both individually
and as trustees of the Otto Bremer Trust, with the goal of halting
a potential takeover.
In mid-December, the three principals of the Otto Bremer Trust
filed a 43-page legal response and counterclaims defending
themselves against accusations of dishonest dealings with Bremer
Bank's board of directors.
What the latest lawsuit says
The latest legal filing accuses the trustees of breach of fiduciary
duty, shareholder oppression and violations of the Minnesota
Control Share Acquisition Act, which seeks to regulate corporate
takeovers. The class action was filed by attorneys for
Minneapolis-based Robins Kaplan in concert with the New York firm
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz.
"The heart of it is what the trustees are doing to these longtime
employees is diluting their stock and their voting power," said
Dick Allyn, Esq. an attorney for the plaintiffs. "Based on Otto
Bremer's founding documents, the bank is not supposed to be sold,
absent some unforeseen circumstance. The bank is doing very well."
The 16 plaintiffs include a mix of longstanding
employee-shareholders, some of whom have worked at Bremer for 35
years or more, and a few newer hires. They include a business
analyst, a senior credit director, a customer support supervisor,
the consumer banking director for Bremer's North Dakota operations,
a senior vice president/operations director, a director of
organizational development and training, and others.
All are "Class A" shareholders who say their voting rights would be
violated if outside investors are allowed to choose the bank's
board of directors.
How the trust responded
In a written statement on Jan. 8, a spokesperson for the trust
said: "While we disagree with the substance of today's legal
filing, we share the plantiffs' obvious concern for what comes next
for the bank and its people."
The statement goes on to say: "We strongly believe that looking at
strategic options for the bank is good for the institution, good
for its employees, good for the people and communities who benefit
from the philanthropy Otto Bremer made possible and good for
everyone who – like the Trust – is a shareholder in the
enterprise."
A unique banking model
German immigrant philanthropist Otto Bremer, who founded the bank,
created the philanthropic trust in 1944 with the intent that it
would hold the financial corporation's shares and reinvest the
dividends in the community. The trust owns a 92 percent stake in
the bank, which is otherwise employee-owned.
The employee lawsuit states, however, that Bremer Bank was
reorganized in 1989, giving employees 80 percent ownership over
Bremer's Class A shares, and allowing them to "thus wield 80
percent of the voting power on most matters, including director
elections."
The lawsuit notes that the philanthropy, Bremer Trust, continues to
receive the bulk of Bremer Bank's dividends through its ownership
of nonvoting Class B shares. To that end, the bank has been the
"economic engine" behind the Trust's charitable giving, providing a
12 percent average annual return for the Trust and paying it over
$750 million in dividends since 1989.
In their legal filings, the trustees have said a sale could
potentially double the trust's charitable assets and allow it to
increase its charitable giving by $50 million per year.
The three trustees and bank officials have both pointed to similar
language in the founding documents, to opposite ends. Otto Bremer
directed the trustees to permanently retain all of the trust's bank
shares unless it becomes "necessary or proper" to sell them due to
"unforeseen circumstances."
They disagree on whether efforts to give controlling interests in
the bank to outside investors qualifies as necessary or proper.
Perilous atmosphere
The trustees have indicated that an increasingly intense period of
mergers and acquisitions throughout the banking industry has
created a perilous atmosphere for small community banks and even
mid-sized regional banks like Bremer, which serves Minnesota, North
Dakota and Wisconsin.
The $13 billion bank, however, has shown no obvious signs of
financial distress. Bremer remains the fourth-largest bank in
Minnesota and the 11th-largest farm and agricultural lender in the
country. "Since the reorganization (of 1989), Bremer has thrived,"
states the employee lawsuit.
Bremer Financial paid out $76.4 million in dividends to
shareholders in 2018, including $70.3 million to the Otto Bremer
Trust and $6.1 million to employees.
The employee lawsuit notes the three trustees are paid $1.4 million
between them, an amount that could increase "tenfold" as a result
of a bank sale. Though trustee salaries are set in court,
Lipschultz and Reardon earn management fees for overseeing trust
investments beyond those of the bank itself, and those fees would
increase alongside the trust's assets. [GN]
PARKOFF OPERATING: New York App. Div. Flips Dismissal of Quinn Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned COURTNEY QUINN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARKOFF OPERATING CORP, ET AL.,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 7470, 155195/17 (N.Y. App. Div.),
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, reversed the March 19, 2018 order of the New York
County Supreme Court that granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the causes of action alleging violations of the Rent Stabilization
Law on behalf of a putative class of tenants.
Initially, the Appellate Court rejected the Defendants' argument
that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for rent
overcharge claims under the Rent Stabilization Law on behalf of the
named Plaintiffs and that therefore none of the named Plaintiffs
could be "typical" representatives of the putative class asserting
rent overcharge claims.
In light of the Court of Appeals' decision in Maddicks v Big City
Props., LLC, the Appellate Court finds that it was premature to
dismiss the class action allegations on the ground that the
complaint does not adequately plead the class action prerequisites
of typicality and commonality. A motion to dismiss should not be
equated to a motion for class certification. Thus, it is
"premature" to dismiss class claims based on allegations of a
methodical attempt to illegally inflate rents.
Like the instant Plaintiffs, the tenants in Maddicks resided in
several buildings owned by entities under common control, and
asserted class action claims similar to the instant claims,
alleging that the defendant building owners engaged in a common
scheme to evade rent regulations by failing to follow the rent
requirements for landlords participating in the J-51 tax incentive
programs and by claiming rent increases based on individual
apartment improvements that were not actually performed.
Accordingly, as in Maddicks, the Appellate Court holds that the
Defendants' motion was premature.
The Appellate Court has considered and finds unavailing the
Defendants' other arguments in support of dismissing the class
action allegations at this early stage. It does not reach the
Defendants' argument that the claims against certain individual
Plaintiffs are time-barred.
With the class action allegations reinstated, the action may not,
at this point, be dismissed so that it can be adjudicated by DHCR.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed, on the law, without
costs, and denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/sYpxMu from Leagle.com.
Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com --
of counsel), for appellants.
PAYLESS CAR RENTAL: Garvin Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Payless Car Rental,
Inc. et al. The case is styled as Jeffrey Garvin, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Payless Car Rental, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Payless Car Rental,
Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Payless Car Rental, Inc., a Nevada
Corporation, Advantage Opco, LLC doing business as: Advantage Rent
a Car a Delaware Corporation, Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00172-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Deceptive Trade
Practices.
Payless Car Rental, Inc. is a car rental company owned by Avis
Budget Group and headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Helen Irene Zeldes, Esq.
Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP
11543 West Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (760) 349-1900
Fax: (760) 349-1999
Email: hzeldes@sshhlaw.com
PHH CORPORATION: CWELT-2008 Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHH Corporation. The
case is styled as CWELT-2008 Series 1045 LLC, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-20331-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 27, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation
headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, which provides mortgage
services to some of the world's largest financial services
firms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 282-1858
Fax: (844) 786-3694
Email: service@advocacypa.com
POP WARNER: Summary Judgment Granted in Youth Football CTE Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony B. Corleto, Esq. -- anthony.corleto@wilsonelser.com -- Dan
Lee, Esq. -- daniel.lee@wilsonelser.com -- Madison Kucker, Esq. --
madison.kucker@wilsonelser.com -- and Ian Stewart, Esq. --
ian.stewart@wilsonelser.com -- of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in a decision of
first impression, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted defendant's motion for summary judgment
against negligence and wrongful death claims brought by the estates
of two young men in Archie v. Pop Warner, USDC CD CA
2:16-cv-06603.
Archie was brought by the mothers of two former youth football
players, each of whom died in their mid-twenties, a decade after
they last played youth football; one died from a self-inflicted
gunshot wound, the other in a motorcycle accident. The mothers sued
for money damages and to enjoin advertising that "youth tackle
football is safe for minor children." Front and center in the
complaint are allegations that exposure to repetitive contact leads
to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), the disease process
found at autopsy of the brains of football players Aaron Hernandez
and Junior Seau. The plaintiffs in Archie each claim that their son
had CTE as the result of playing youth football, and this led to
the behavior that ended their lives. Worth noting: each played
football in high school, one played into college and the one who
died by self-inflicted gunshot wound was diagnosed with bi-polar
disorder and was subject to six psychiatric holds. [GN]
QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Bloom Sues over 57% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BLOOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC.; J. JOEL QUADRACCI; and
DAVID J. HONAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11860 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
27, 2019) is a securities fraud class action is brought on behalf
of purchasers of Quad's publicly traded securities from February
22, 2017 to October 29, 2019, inclusive pursuing remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, on October 29, 2019, after the market
closed, Quad/Graphics slashed its quarterly dividend by 50% to
$0.15 per share, announced plans to divest its book business, and
lowered its fiscal 2019 guidance. On this news, the price of
Quad/Graphics's stock declined $6.42 per share, or nearly 57%, to
close at $4.85 per share on October 30, 2019.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants concealed: (1) that the Company's book business in
United States was underperforming; (2) that, as a result, the
Company was likely to divest its book business; (3) that the
Company was unreasonably vulnerable to decreases in market prices;
(4) that, 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) that, as a result of
the foregoing, The Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Quad Graphics, Inc. operates as a commercial printing company with
image centers and photography studios nationwide and plants across
the country. The Company offers data and strategy services, graphic
design, imaging solutions, print production, mailing and
distribution, and workflow solutions. Quad Graphics operates
worldwide. [BN]
The plaintiff is represented by:
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
rshikowitz@bfalaw.com
- and -
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
David Stein, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612-1406
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
REALREAL INC: Klein Law Files Class Action
------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announced that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of The RealReal, Inc. There is no
cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have
until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.
The RealReal, Inc. (REAL)
Class Period: all persons and entities who purchased RealReal
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's June
27, 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 24, 2020
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period The
RealReal, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's employees
received little training on how to spot fake items; (2) the
Company's strict quotas on its employees exacerbated product
authentication issues; (3) consequently, the potential for
counterfeit or mislabeled items to make it through Company's
authentication process was higher than disclosed; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in REAL:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/the-realreal-inc-loss-submission-form?id=5159&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]
ROSENBLUM & BIANCO: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosenblum & Bianco,
LLP. The case is styled as Merlett Taylor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rosenblum &
Bianco, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00419 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Rosenblum & Bianco, LLP provides its clients with superior legal
representation in both Landlord-Tenant litigation and related Real
Estate matters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
SEA VIEW RESTAURANTS: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sea View Restaurants, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV00257 (Cal. Super., January
3, 2020), seeks recovery of unpaid wages and penalties, missed
breaks compensation and redress for failure to provide wage
statements under California Business and Professions Code,
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders in addition to seeking declaratory relief and
restitution.
Sea View Restaurants operates as Gladstones, a restaurant located
at Pacific Palisades, where Plaintiff was employed as a server.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
145 S. Spring Street, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone Number: (310) 860 0770
Facsimile Number: (310) 860 0771
Email: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com
SEATTLE CHILDREN'S: Mold Infestation in Hospital Spurs Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WQAD reports that Seattle Children's Hospital knew for years that a
mold infestation in its facilities could be related to its
air-handling system, but "engaged in a cover-up" that sickened many
patients and resulted in the deaths of six children, according to a
class-action lawsuit filed January 6.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of patients who sought treatment at
the hospital and became infected by mold. It claims that Seattle
Children's knew since at least 2005 when a family sued the hospital
that Aspergillus mold, which is especially dangerous to those with
an already weakened immune system, could be transmitted through its
air-handling system.
The hospital "engaged in a cover-up designed to reassure its
patients, doctors, nurses, and the public that its premises were
safe, when in fact they were not," the lawsuit says.
Six children died since 2001
The suit says doctors and nursing staff were not aware that the
facilities were unsafe for their procedures.
"We are incredibly sorry for the hurt experienced by these families
and regret that recent developments have caused additional grief.
Out of respect for privacy, we do not intend to share details about
our patients or comment on specific cases or legal action," the
hospital said in a statement January 6.
Seattle Children's Hospital shut down its operating rooms twice
this year after air tests detected the common mold in the air. One
patient died and six more were sickened in that outbreak. But
between 2001 and 2014, seven patients developed the same infection
and five of those children died, hospital CEO Dr. Jeff Sperring
said last month.
"At the time, we believed most of these were isolated infections,"
he said. "However, we now believe that these infections were likely
caused by the air handling systems that serve our operating
rooms."
"Looking back, we should have recognized these connections
sooner."
'Overall filthy conditions'
The lawsuit alleges, however, that internal communication about
"systemic problems" with the air-handling system's maintenance show
the hospital should have been aware of risks as early as 2000.
During 2002 and 2003, the suit claims, a professional engineering
consultant alerted the hospital to concerns about the air-handling
system including failure to test equipment, water leaks, plugged
screens, live and dead birds in fan shafts and "overall filthy
condition of all air-handling units."
The hospital's lead engineer at the time also identified bird
debris and claimed the units were "rotting out."
In 2005, a family sued Seattle Children's Hospital over an
Aspergillus infection, but the hospital confidentially settled in
2008. The current suit alleges that the hospital was keeping a
"deadly secret" to reassure staff and the public of a safety it was
lacking.
The lawsuit documents several specific cases and goes into detail
about how they were impacted by the Aspergillus and what it calls
the hospital's failure to act.
Patients in the suit are described as having been infected with
mold after coming to the hospital for procedures including the
placement of a port and heart surgery.
The suit is seeking class action status from the court and damages
to the plaintiffs and others who join the class action "in amounts
to be proven at trial." [GN]
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Readies Defense in Suit Over 'Blackfish'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Hessedal, writing for CBS News 8, reports that a federal
trial is set to get underway in San Diego next month to hear
evidence in a longstanding class-action suit claiming SeaWorld
deceived investors about the negative impact from the "Blackfish"
documentary that criticized SeaWorld's practice of keeping killer
whales in captivity.
Investors claim that when SeaWorld executives finally acknowledged
in August 2014 that the controversial 2013 "Blackfish" film hurt
attendance, shareholders lost nearly 33% of the value of their
SeaWorld stock in one day.
"The market was surprised by this important new information and
swiftly reacted," the plaintiffs wrote in court filings.
"(SeaWorld's) alleged misstatements and omissions were a
substantial, proximate cause of this stock price decline."
SeaWorld officials say the company acted reasonably and prudently
in determining the film's potential risks to shareholders.
"The evidence will show that analysts and investors were aware of
the risk to the company posed by negative publicity generated by
'Blackfish'," SeaWorld attorneys wrote in a recent court filing.
In August 2013, shortly before the documentary began reaching a
wider audience, the Los Angeles Times published an article under
the headline "Is 'Blackfish' documentary hurting SeaWorld
attendance?"
"'Blackfish' has had no attendance impact," former SeaWorld
Corporate Communications Vice President Fred Jacobs told the
newspaper in response to questions about a 6% drop in visitation
over the first half of the year.
In a Bloomberg article published the same day, Jacobs stated, "We
can attribute no attendance impact at all to the movie."
Jacobs later acknowledged in a deposition on multiple occasions he
made false statements to reporters when he told them that SeaWorld
had not experienced any harm to its reputation, business or
attendance following the release of "Blackfish." When asked in the
deposition why he said something he knew to be false, he answered,
"I was instructed to answer the question by (former CEO) Jim
Atchison."
Attorneys for SeaWorld argue that Jacobs's statement accurately
communicated the company's position.
"In his role as communications officer, (Jacobs) conveyed to the
press the genuinely held views of management," the defense wrote.
"It is their intent that matters, not Mr. Jacobs'."
Following the company's next quarterly reporting in November,
former SeaWorld CEO James Atchison downplayed "Blackfish" to the
Wall Street Journal.
"I scratch my head if there's any notable impact from this film at
all and I can't attribute one to it," Atchison said. "Ironically,
our attendance has improved since the movie came out."
The basis of the plaintiff's claims against SeaWorld stem from the
statements above that were made to the press along with comments
made in SeaWorld's quarterly earnings reports through August 2014
that blame attendance issues on factors unrelated to the film, such
as ticket pricing.
In a recent court filing, the plaintiffs attorneys wrote
"plaintiffs have uncovered reams of evidence demonstrating that
'Blackfish' was impacting SeaWorld's reputation, attendance,
performance, and financial health. Despite this, Defendants
repeatedly assured investors that 'Blackfish' was a non-event, and
that disappointing results were fully explained by other transient,
less serious causes."
Two of the plaintiffs, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement
System and a teacher's pension fund based in Denmark, claim they
suffered more than $4 million in losses in August 2014 when
SeaWorld first acknowledged the film was indirectly hurting
attendance.
SeaWorld to defend public statements
This February, in a San Diego federal court, Atchison is expected
to testify that there was "no noticeable impact" from the film
during the latter half of 2013, according to court records.
Atchison shared that sentiment with investors during a conference
call following SeaWorld's quarterly earnings report in March 2014.
"(Our) surveys don't reflect any shift in sentiment about intent to
visit our parks," the former CEO said after announcing SeaWorld
parks had record attendance in the fourth quarter of that year.
"The evidence will show that a reasonable investor would have
understood Mr. Atchison's statement to mean that the Company was
proactively monitoring and addressing reputational issues related
to Blackfish," SeaWorld attorneys wrote in a recent court filing.
"(But) given its strong performance in 2013 as 'Blackfish's'
visibility and market penetration increased, the company did not
believe the film was materially impacting its business."
SeaWorld stock plunges after announcement related to 'Blackfish'
By early 2014, attorneys for the investors argued that "Blackfish"
was taking a toll on SeaWorld.
During that period, SeaWorld attorneys claim the company properly
disclosed potential risks posed by the documentary through filings
and reports mandated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Plaintiffs say one disclosure that SeaWorld published in a March
2014 SEC filing, related to a bill seeking to ban the display of
captive killer whales known as the "Blackfish bill," was the first
time SeaWorld had formally acknowledged "Blackfish" was hurting
theme park attendance.
When SeaWorld reported its quarterly earnings five months later,
the company spoke about the bill again.
"Attendance in the quarter was impacted by demand pressures we
believe were related to recent media attention surrounding proposed
legislation in the state of California," the company stated in the
August 2014 earnings report.
Attorneys for SeaWorld dispute the shareholders' contention that
the company made a "corrective disclosure" when it tied the
attendance drop to the proposed California legislation.
Plaintiffs lost $7.52 per share, expert claims
Chad Coffman, a financial analyst retained by the plaintiffs as an
expert witness, is expected to share his opinion at trial that
SeaWorld's misrepresentations caused SeaWorld's stock price to drop
in August 2014.
According to Coffman's calculations, investors lost $7.52 per share
due to the alleged fraud, court records show. SeaWorld's attorneys
dispute the methodology, claiming it doesn't factor in SeaWorld's
fluctuating financial performance during the period addressed by
the class-action lawsuit. [GN]
SETON MEDICAL: Fifth Circuit Unravels FDCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Maura Kathleen Monaghan, writing for Law.com, reports that a
federal appeals court has decertified a class action brought under
the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after finding that
the lead plaintiff had no claims that were common or typical to the
class.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a
district judge should not have certified a Texas class of 7,650
customers of Seton Medical Center Hays who received letters from a
debt collection services provider. The panel, two of whom are
appointees of President Donald Trump, found there were too many
variances in how Seton's customers might have interpreted the
letter to establish a common issue, as required under the federal
Rule 23 of Civil Procedure.
"As the Supreme Court explained in Dukes, commonality requires more
than a shared cause of action or common allegation of fact—it
requires a common legal contention capable of class-wide
resolution," wrote Judge James Ho, whom Trump nominated for the
bench in 2018, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 opinion in
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes. "Every member of the putative class
received the same allegedly threatening letter from Medicredit. But
the FDCPA penalizes empty threats, not all threats. So the letter
alone is insufficient to certify a class."
The ruling is a rare appeals court decision on class certification
in a case that, according to the defendant's appeal brief,
"presents novel questions about he interplay of class action
procedure and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that have not
been addressed by this court nor, to the best of counsel's
knowledge, any other U.S. Court of Appeals."
Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Esq. -– kmonaghan@debevoise.com -- a
partner at New York's Debevoise & Plimpton, who represented
defendants Medicredit Inc., the debt collection service provider,
and its surety bondholder, Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland,
declined to comment.
Plaintiffs attorney Robert Zimmer, Esq. of Zimmer & Associates in
Austin, did not respond to a request for comment.
Nina Flecha filed the class action in 2016 after she received a
letter from Medicredit that she believe threatened legal action.
The letter said, "At this time, a determination must be made with
our client as to the disposition of your account. Your failure to
cooperate in satisfying this debt indicates voluntary resolution is
doubtful."
Under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, a company must not
"false, deceptive, or misleading" representations, such as false
legal threats. According to Flecha, Medicredit does not file
lawsuits to collect payments. A Seton representative, however, told
Flecha in a telephone call that a lawsuit was a possibility.
In court documents, Zimmer referred to Medicredit's argument as
"frivolous" and based on an "erroneous view of the law."
But Medicredit argued that Flecha's fear of legal action was based
on the Seton telephone call, not the wording in the letter.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that she provided no evidence about
Seton's debt collection practices that might reveal whether it
actually intended to sue her. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, of
the Western District of Texas, also had wrongly presumed, for the
purpose of class certification, that Seton's potential legal action
was a veiled threat because Medicredit didn't sue its customers.
"But courts must certify class actions based on proof, not
presumptions," Ho wrote.
The panel, citing Supreme Court precedent, did not rule on
Medicredit's alternative argument that unnamed class members who
suffered no injuries lacked standing to sue under Article III of
the U.S. Constitution. But Ho wrote that there were "substantial
questions" about standing in the case. "Countless unnamed class
members lack standing," he wrote, such as those who threw away the
letter assuming it was junk mail.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Andy Oldham, another 2018 Trump
appointee, said standing issues should apply at the class
certification stage.
"In my view, that lack of standing is sufficient to decide the
case," he wrote. [GN]
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sharkninja Operating
LLC. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Sharkninja Operating LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00387
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
SharkNinja Operating LLC provides electronic products. The Company
manufactures and wholesales variety of home and kitchen electrical
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Shaulov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P. The case is styled as Alexander Shaulov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00417
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. was founded in 2003. The Company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders Law PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
SPACE COAST CREDIT: Durrant Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Al Durrant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Space Coast Credit Union, 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 Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Space Coast Credit Union is a credit union in Florida that serves
29 counties in Florida and has 59 branch locations. It attempted to
contact Durrant via SMS on her cellular telephone in an attempt to
solicit their products and/or services using an automatic telephone
dialing system. Durrant did not give his express consent to be
contacted in this manner, says the complaint. [BN]
American Directions is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, 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
SUBARU: Faces Another Class Action Over Outback Airbag Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that Subaru of
America and Subaru Indiana Automotive have been hit with another
class-action lawsuit over an issue with the Subaru Outback.
The new lawsuit involves a Virginia woman who claims to have been
injured when the airbag in her 2011 Subaru Outback deployed after
she was involved in a minor accident. The new lawsuit was filed in
December and the motion to dismiss the case by Subaru was denied by
James P. Jones U.S. District Judge in Virginia.
The plaintiff, Rebecca Rentz James is being represented by
attorneys Woods Rogers PLC, Roanoke, Virginia. James claims she was
driving her 2011 Subaru Outback in Tazewell County, Virginia, and
while making a right turn, the right front fender of the vehicle
made contact with a tree adjacent to the road. The "brush with the
tree" caused only minor damage to the fender and posed no risk of
harm to James.
The court record says, after the vehicle contacted the tree, James
was able to correct the vehicle's direction and bring it to a stop
in the right lane. Although the vehicle had only lightly touched
the tree, the vehicle's driver side curtain airbag "forcefully"
deployed striking the women on the upper left side of her body
injuring her cervical spine and neck.
James alleges that such a minor accident was foreseeable to Subaru
Corporation and Subaru Indiana Automotive, where the Outback wagon
is manufactured, and that the brief, non-dangerous contact should
not have triggered deployment of the airbag in the Outback.
The Subaru Outback is manufactured in Indiana
The Virginia woman further alleges that the airbag deployed with
"excessive and dangerous force" and it was foreseeable to Subaru
that such an unnecessary deployment of the airbag posed an
unreasonable risk of harm to drivers. The court records say Jones
claims there is a breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, negligence, and failure to warn customers of the
airbag issue. James seeks $12.5 million in damages.
Judge James P. Jones said, "I find that James has adequately pled
that if the airbag (in the 2011 Subaru Outback) was not defective
or were she warned of its defect, she would not have been injured
by its unexpected and forceful deployment" and allowed the
class-action lawsuit to move forward. Stay tuned to Torque News for
any new information on the case when it becomes available. [GN]
SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Class Certified Under FLSA in Possi Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. P. Stadtmueller grants the parties' joint motion for
conditional class certification and class notice in the lawsuit
titled STEPHEN POSSI, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, WARREN K.
HAEBERLE, and BRIAN DEMURI HAEBERLE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01599-JPS
(E.D. Wisc.).
The Plaintiff filed this class action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law against the Defendants to
recover unpaid overtime wages due to their employees.
This class is conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b):
All persons who are or have been employed as hourly
employees by Synergy at any time since October 30, 2016.
The Defendants shall, within fourteen (14) days of the Court's
order granting conditional certification, identify and produce to
the Plaintiff's Counsel the first name, last name, last known
street address, city, state, zip code, phone number (to the extent
maintained), date of birth, and dates of employment, of all
persons, who fit within the class definition. The class list will
be produced to the Plaintiff's Counsel as an excel spreadsheet with
each field of information as a separate column.
The Plaintiff shall send the agreed-upon Notice of Right to Join
Lawsuit for Unpaid Wages Against Synergy Industrial Corporation via
regular mail to all individuals within the collective class with
fourteen (14) days of receiving the class list from the Defendants.
Consent forms postmarked within thirty (30) days after the first
mailing of the Notice will be considered timely. With the
exception of Notices that are returned to Counsel for the Plaintiff
as undeliverable, no reminder notices shall be sent by the
Plaintiff or his Counsel during the 30-day opt-in period.
In the event the Notice is returned undeliverable, the Plaintiff's
Counsel shall take reasonable steps to determine updated contact
information on the member of the conditionally certified collective
action and shall promptly resend the Notice if forwarding
information is secured. Consent forms postmarked within thirty
(30) days of such forwarded notices shall be considered timely.
Counsel for the Plaintiff shall promptly file with the Court copies
of each consent form that is signed and postmarked within thirty
(30) days of mailing.
By stipulating to conditional certification of the collective
class, the Defendant does not waive or in any way compromise their
right to seek decertification of the conditionally certified action
or otherwise challenge a FLSA collective action or Rule 23
class.[CC]
TEAM PIZZA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Bradford Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bradford, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Team Pizza, Inc.; Chris Short; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe
1-10; Case No. 1:20-cv-00060-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 24, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff
with minimum wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to adequately reimburse delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby, failing to
pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for
all hours worked, the Plaintiff alleges. He also alleges that the
Defendants have also failed to properly inform him and similarly
situated delivery drivers of the requirements for taking a tip
credit. He adds that the Defendants have failed to properly take a
tip credit from his wages because, after accounting for
unreimbursed expenses, the Defendants have taken more of a tip
credit than they informed him they would be taking.
The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for the Defendants.
The Defendants operate Domino's Pizza locations around the country,
including but not limited to in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: 513-715-8711
Fax: 614-340-4620
Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
- and –
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: 513-715-8711
Fax: 614-340-4620
Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
lroselle@billerkimble.com
THOR MOTOR: Hayes Seeks Certification of Two Classes Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JENNIFER HAYES, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THOR MOTOR COACH,
INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00375-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.), filed with the
Court a motion for step one conditional certification and notice
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff seeks an order conditionally certifying the case as
an FLSA collective action under Section 216(b) against Thor on
behalf of similarly situated employees consisting of two classes:
1. All current and/or former employees of Defendant who
work/worked for Defendant as non-exempt manufacturing
employees in the United States, are/were paid on a piece
rate basis, and who worked 40 or more hours in at least one
workweek during the period from May 10, 2016 through the
disposition of this matter ("FLSA Piece-Rate Class"); and
2. All current and/or former employees of Defendant who were
subjected to one or more wage deductions taken by Thor for
costs of tools, equipment and drug tests in categories Thor
called "Purchase," "Sales Tax Purchase" and "Drug Test" on
employee paystubs in at least one workweek during the
period from May 10, 2016 through the disposition of this
matter. ("FLSA Deduction Class").
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order:
A. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
e-mail to all members of the forgoing classes;
B. approving the attached proposed Notice and Consent to Join
Form informing such present and former employees of the
pendency of this collective action and permitting them to
opt into the case;
C. directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days one or
two Rosters of the foregoing class members includes their
full names, their dates of employment, their last known
home addresses and personal email addresses; and indicating
their membership of one or both of the foregoing classes.
Additionally, directing the Defendant to produce such a
Roster in Excel or similar exportable/importable format if
such format is available;
D. directing that Notice, in the form approved by the Court,
be sent to such present and former class members within 14
days of the Plaintiff's receipt of the Roster(s) using the
information contained the same;
E. directing the Defendant to provide a Declaration that the
produced Roster(s) fully comply with the Court's Order;
F. directing a Notice Period of 90 days; and
G. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
or e-mail addresses are found for one or more of such
present or former employees.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
TOP DOG PLUMBING: Aleman-Valdivia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Aleman-Valdivia and Freddy Sanchez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOP DOG PLUMBING &
HEATING CORP., FIRST CHOICE PL, INC., VERONICA AZULAI, and RON
MAIMON AZULAI, Case No. 1:20-cv-00421 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2020),
seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law, and
New York Common Law.
Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiffs did not receive the proper minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime wages due to them for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a foreman and plumber,
and as a mechanic.
Defendants TDP and First Choice offer residential and commercial
plumbing and heating services to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine Morales, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 460-0047
Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
TOTAL: Shippers Sue for Adding Fuel Surcharges to Cargo Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
L.M. Sixel, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that the
petrochemical and refining unit of the French energy major Total is
the latest big freight shipper to accuse the nation's four biggest
railroads of price fixing by adding fuel surcharges to cargo
prices.
Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, which is headquartered in
Houston, joins 37 other companies, including the Houston refiners
Phillips 66 and Motiva Enterprises, suing the railroads that
control 90 percent of the nation's rail freight traffic for
allegedly conspiring to impose fuel surcharges from as early as
2003.
The companies allege that Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway of
Fort Worth, CSX Transportation of Florida, Norfolk Southern Railway
of Virginia and Union Pacific Railroad of Nebraska violated federal
anti-trust laws by coordinating the fuel surcharges through
meetings, phone calls and emails.
The surcharges generated billions of dollars in additional revenue
for the railroads, according to Total, which filed its lawsuit in
late December in federal court in Houston. The surcharges are added
to shipping rates when fuel prices rise above a predetermined
trigger price.
Total alleges that the fuel surcharges were not tied to the cost of
fuel but instead calculated as percentage base transportation
rates, essentially allowing the fuel surcharges to become an
across-the-board price increase, according to court documents.
Total estimates that it spent about $300 million transporting
chemicals and other freight on the four railroads between 2003 and
2008, including nearly $30 million in fuel surcharges, according to
court records. Total declined to comment.
Strong evidence
Lawsuits by companies shipping on the railroads were filed in
federal courts nationwide after an appeals court in August rejected
a request to reconsider a class-action claim. Six such suits were
filed in Houston.
Eight companies brought a class-action suit against the railroads
on behalf of 16,000 shippers in 2008, but a federal trial court in
Washington determined in 2017 that the plaintiffs didn't meet the
criteria to be certified as a class because they didn't share the
same level of damages.
The court, however, noted strong documentary evidence of conspiracy
and injury to companies as the railroads imposed the fuel
surcharges, according to court records. Consequently, some of the
biggest shippers, including automakers Kia Motors and Mercedes-Benz
and food processors Campbell Soup and Kellogg, have brought
individual claims of price fixing against the four railroads.
BNSF denies the allegations and said it is reviewing the latest
lawsuit filings. Union Pacific said the claims are without merit
and that it plans to vigorously defend itself in court. CSX and
Norfolk Southern declined to comment.
Railroads imposed fuel surcharges before 2003, but with varying
degrees of success, according to court documents. The market for
freight was highly competitive, and to win business, railroads
would drop surcharges or risk losing customers.
But by early 2003, it became apparent to the four railroads that
they would encounter difficulties making their fuel surcharges
stick if they didn't have an industrywide agreement, according to
lawsuits filed in Houston in September by Phillips 66 and Motiva, a
subsidiary of Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company, Saudi
Aramco.
Social occasions
Representatives of the railroads allegedly colluded at social
occasions, business meetings and through a trade association to
hammer out details of how surcharges would be imposed on customers,
according to court documents. By 2010, the four rail carriers had
nearly doubled their profit margins to 13 percent, compared with a
decade earlier, according to the lawsuits of Phillips 66 and
Motiva.
Phillips 66 declined to comment. Motiva did not respond to requests
for comment.
The lawsuits are seeking unspecified damages. [GN]
TRANSFORMATION 5701: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transformation 5701,
LLC. The case is styled as Jermaine Deleston on behalf of himself,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transformation
5701, LLC, doing business as: Hotel ZaZa, a Texas limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00665 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Transformation 5701 LLC, doing business as Hotel Zaza, owns and
operates hotels and motels. The Hotel offers lodging, dining,
entertainment, meetings, events, and other services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 279-1555
Fax: (516) 213-0339
Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until February 28, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Trulieve
Cannabis Corp. (OTC: TCNNF), if they purchased the Company's
securities between September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
What You May Do
If you purchased securities of Trulieve and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-tcnnf/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by February 28, 2020.
About the Lawsuit
Trulieve and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On December 17, 2019, a report published by Grizzly Research
highlighted a range of allegations against the Company including
that most of its cultivation space consisted of hoop houses that
produce low quality output," extensive ties between Trulieve and
FBI corruption probes, that the Company's initial license approval
"stinks of corruption," and undisclosed related party
transactions.
On this news, the price of Trulieve's shares plummeted.
The case is McNear v. Trulieve Cannabis Corp. et al, 19-cv-07289.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients – including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking
recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or
malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New
York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Tel: 1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: March 27 Hearing on Proposed Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION (S.D.N.Y.
Case No. 18-CV-01620), a hearing will be held on March 27, 2020, at
10:00 am. before the Honorable Victor Marrero, United States
District Judge of the Southern District of New York, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15B, New York, New York
10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $15,000,000 should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses,
and a Compensatory Award to Lead Plaintiff should be approved; and
(4) whether this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated December 2, 2019
(the "Settlement Stipulation").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Ubiquiti
Networks, Inc., (N/K/A Ubiquiti Inc.) ("Ubiquiti" or the "Company")
between May 9, 2013 and February 19, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by
this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims
you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Ubiquiti
securities. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by visiting
www.UbiquitiNetworksSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-844-924-0858 or at
info@UbiquitiNetworksSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member
of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release Form to the Claims Administrator at the address listed in
the detailed Notice postmarked or submitted online no later than
April 3, 2020, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by
any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is postmarked no later than March 6, 2020, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and postmarked or
hand-delivered on or before March 6, 2020, to each of the
following:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
Lead Counsel
New York, NY 10007
Jeremy A. Lieberman
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, Floor 20
Counsel For Defendants
New York, NY 10016
Peter E. Kazanoff
Nicholas S. Goldin
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may visit
www.UbiquitiNetworksSecuritiesLitigation.com or write to Lead
Counsel at the above address. [GN]
UDELHOVEN OILFIELD: Lapikas Files FLSA Suit in Alaska
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Udelhoven Oilfield
System Services, Inc. The case is styled as Denny Lapikas,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Udelhoven Oilfield System Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00017-JWS (D. Alaska, Jan. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Udelhoven Oilfield Systems Services, Inc. provides general
contracting services for oilfield development. The Company offers
services in the areas of modular fabrication, mechanical, civil,
and electrical inspection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heather Leigh Gardner, Esq.
Heather Gardner Attorney at Law LLC
4141 B Street, Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 375-8776
Fax: (888) 526-6608
Email: hgardnerlaw@gmail.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: $1.5M Attorneys Fees in Trujillo Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID TRUJILLO; DEANNA HARDEN; on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTH
GROUP INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY; Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-2547-JFW (KKx)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.
The Motion of the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the
Settlement Class, for final approval of the class action Settlement
reached with the Defendants came on for hearing before the Court on
Dec. 2, 2019. After considering the Settlement, the moving papers,
arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court,
Judge Walter granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement. He directed the Parties and their counsel to implement
and consummate the Settlement according to its terms and
provisions.
The proposed Trujillo Settlement Class is finally certified for
settlement purposes.
The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the
amount of $1,525,000. The amount covers any and all claims for
attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred by any and all the
Class Counsel in connection with the Settlement of the Litigation
and the administration of such Settlement. The Class Counsel
Payment will be provided by United to Gianelli & Morris in
accordance with Paragraph 9 of the Settlement.
As an incentive award for participation as the Class
Representatives in the Action, the Judge awarded $15,000 to
Plaintiff David Trujillo and $15,000 to Plaintiff Deanna Harden.
United will pay the incentive award in addition to any relief that
the Plaintiffs are entitled to receive as the Identified Class
Members. United will pay the incentive awards in accordance with
Paragraph 10 of the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qJaFFx from Leagle.com.
Deanna Harden, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & David Trujillo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adrian J. Barrio --
adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com -- Gianelli and Morris ALC, Conal F.
Doyle -- conal@conaldoylelaw.com -- Doyle Law, J. Stephen Beke --
sbeke@conaldoylelaw.com -- Doyle Law, Robert S. Gianelli --
rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com -- Gianelli and Morris ALC & Joshua Seth
Davis -- joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com -- Gianelli and Morris ALC.
United HealthCare Services, Inc. & United Healthcare Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by David W. Skaar --
david.skaar@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells LLP & Michael M.
Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
LLP.
US ENERGY SOLUTIONS: Madrid Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Energy Solutions,
Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Madrid, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US Energy
Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00587 (N.D. Ill., Jan.
27, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
US Energy Solutions INC is a Philadelphia based energy brokerage
company with offices in Chicago, Boston, and Pittsburgh.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
WALMART INC: Hester Moves to Certify Two Consumer Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL HESTER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case
No. 5:18-cv-05225-TLB (W.D. Ark.), moves for an order certifying
these classes pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
a. All consumers who, since November 14, 2014, purchased 2200,
3350, 4000, and 6700 mAh Onn power banks within the State of
Georgia. Excluded from this are any of Walmart's officers,
directors, o employees; officers, directors, or employees
of any entity in which Walmart currently has or has had a
controlling interest; and Walmart's legal representatives,
heirs, successors, and assigns; and
b. All consumers who, during the applicable limitations
period, purchased 2200, 3350, 4000, and 6700 mAh Onn power
banks in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. Excluded from the
Multi-State Class are any of Walmart's officers, directors,
or employees; officers, directors, or employees of any
entity in which Walmart currently has or has had a
controlling interest; and Walmart's legal representatives,
heirs, successors, and assigns.
Mr. Hester also asks the Court to appoint him Plaintiff as class
representative, to appoint his counsel, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson, & Garber, LLP, and Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, as
class counsel, and to direct the parties to submit a joint proposed
class notice.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3290
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
WAWA INC: First Choice Sues Over POS Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
First Choice Federal Credit Union, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WaWa, Inc. and Wild Goose Holding
Co., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00011, (W.D. Pa., January 3,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs together with other relief resulting from negligence and for
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914.
WaWa is engaged in the business of developing and operating a
system of convenience stores. Wild Goose Holding Co., Inc. is
WaWa's parent company. WaWa currently operates more than 850 retail
stores throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Florida, and Washington, D.C. Around March 2019, computer
hackers accessed WaWa's point-of-sale systems and installed malware
that infected in-store payment terminal and fuel dispensers in the
United States. Hackers stole the payment card data of its
customers.
First Choice Federal Credit Union is a federally-chartered credit
union located in New Castle, Pennsylvania. After the breach, First
Choice spent efforts to investigate fraudulent charges and costs
due to lost interest and transaction fees due to reduced card
usage. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
ktucker@carlsonlynch.com
jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
jseredynski@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
- and -
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
Email: achristina@lowey.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Telephone: (612) 596-4097
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Woodall's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow entered an order in the lawsuit titled
KATRINA WOODALL, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, ET AL., Case No.
2:17-cv-13707-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.):
-- granting the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify Class;
-- denying without prejudice the Defendants' Motion to Sever;
and
-- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate
Cases.
The Plaintiffs are women formerly incarcerated by the Wayne County
Sherriff. They allege that they were subjected to demeaning,
unsanitary, abusive, and invasive group strip searches, and seek
relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had previously ruled that similar
conduct undertaken by Corporal Terri Graham was not actionable,
because Defendant Graham was protected by qualified immunity,
citing Sumpter v. Wayne County, 868 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2017). The
Sixth Circuit did not reach the question of whether Wayne County
could be held liable for as a municipality under Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) for
unconstitutional strip searches.
The Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class of similarly situated
women, who will allege that Wayne County and its Sherriff are
liable under Monell for constitutional violations undertaken by its
officers in the Wayne County Jails. The Court says it will certify
the class for the purposes of determining whether the municipality
bears liability under Section 1983.
The four proposed subclasses are:
* Class No. 1:
all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated
by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County
Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014 until
the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who,
without a legitimate penological interest, were exposed in
the nude to members of the opposite sex while being strip
searched pursuant to the Wayne County Sheriff's policies,
practices, and/or customs, and who allege they have suffered
a compensable injury as a result of the search;
* Class No. 2:
all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated
by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County
Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014, until
the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who,
without a legitimate penological interest, were stripped
searched in a group with other inmates, pursuant to the
Wayne County Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs,
and who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a
result of the search;
* Class No. 3:
all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated
by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County
Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014, until
the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who,
without a legitimate penological interest, were stripped
searched under unsanitary and/or unhygienic conditions,
including being exposed to the bodily fluids of other
inmates who were being strip searched, pursuant to the Wayne
County Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs, and
who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a
result of the search; and
* Class No. 4:
all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated
by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County
Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014 until
the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who,
without a legitimate penological interest, were subject to
derogatory gender-based comments by Defendant Graham during
strip searches, and who allege they have suffered a
compensable injury as a result of the search.
Plaintiffs Katrina Woodall, Katana Johnson, Kelly Davis, Joanie
Williams, Latoya Hearts, and Cynthia Whack-Finley brought this
lawsuit against the County of Wayne, Sheriff Benny Napoleon in his
official capacity, and Officer Graham in her individual capacity.
The Plaintiffs were all incarcerated in the Wayne County Jail for
months-long periods of time between 2010 and 2014. The two types
of searches at issue are "Registry Searches" and Safety/Sanitation
Searches." The former is employed when inmates enter the jail from
the outside, and the latter is employed periodically, without
announcement and also includes a search of the inmates' cells.
The Plaintiffs allege that they were made to strip in full view of
male guards, officers, employees, and inmates. The Plaintiffs and
other female inmates were "forced to bend over and spread their
vaginal parts and anus under the pretense of searching for
contraband." The Plaintiffs would be forced to comply with these
directives even while undergoing their menstrual cycles, resulting
in menstrual discharges. The Plaintiffs allege that the guards,
including Defendant Graham, would routinely degrade and humiliate
Plaintiffs by crudely commenting on their appearance and sexuality
while comparing them to animals.
Judge Tarnow opines that the Plaintiffs' proposed class, and their
four proposed subclasses, will be certified as for allegations
against Wayne County and the Wayne County Sherriff under Monell.
The proposed class members raise similar claims that implicate
similar legal and factual questions. Judge Tarnow notes that Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was designed to allow
class-wide resolution of such questions. As is common in such
cases, the Court will retain the right to decertify the class if
"unforeseen problems arise making class certification with respect
to liability or damages inappropriate."[CC]
WESTCOURT PLACE: Strosberg Sasso Sutts Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Adelle Loisell, writing for BlackburnNews.com, reports that more
than 50 days after the evacuation, many residents of Westcourt
Place in downtown Windsor are still struggling to find a place to
live.
They face obstacles, including a low vacancy rate in the city, and
higher rent, not to mention the difficulties of signing a lease.
"This is probably one of the worst times ever to be looking for new
accommodations, especially if you're renting," said James White, an
administrator of the Facebook group Residential Tenants of
Westcourt Place Windsor Ontario. "If you have to sign a one-year
lease and you have to break it in six months, that's going to cost
you money."
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's last figures suggest
the Windsor Census Metropolitan Area suggested the rental vacancy
rate in the city is just 2.9 per cent. The average people can
expect to pay for rent, meanwhile increased 11.5 per cent between
October 2017 and 2018.
"Over seven weeks of being displaced, a lot of people were
financially strapped," he said. "A lot of people are borrowing
money from relatives. A lot of people are in bad situations, and
there's only so long they can do that."
Strosberg, Sasso, Sutts LLP filed a class-action lawsuit in hopes
of recouping those costs.
Since the fire at Westcourt Place on November 12, the tenants have
been meeting weekly. White says they will hold their sixth meeting
on Jan. 5. He hopes to find out how many residents have been able
to find a new apartment so far.
He believes the plight of his neighbours highlights a need in
Windsor for a crisis management plan to deal with similar incidents
in the future.
"Everyone thinks that someone else should be taking care of it,"
White said. "It's a crisis that's going on only because our system
is not designed to deal with it."
Last month, Mayor Drew Dilkens told BlackburnNews.com the City of
Windsor had put some tenants up in a motel on Howard Avenue, but he
could not say how many, or how much it cost taxpayers.
He did express sympathy with the tenants saying, "our goal was to
make sure no one was left on the street, and we've done that."
Some residents have sought refuge in homeless shelters, while
others are staying with friends and family.
White could not say how many have successfully found a new home,
but he moved into a new apartment.
He plans to return to Westcourt Place once the building reopens.
[GN]
WILLIAMS WPC-I: Andrews Sues Over Age & Employment Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH ANDREWS v. WILLIAMS WPC-I, LLC; WILLIAMS WPC-II, INC.;
WILLIAMS WPC-III, INC.; WILLIAMS WPC INTERNATIONAL COMPANY; and,
Alan Armstrong (individually), Case No. 4:19-cv-02200-MWB (M.D.
Pa., Dec. 23, 2019), is a class and collective action brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees seeking
relief from unlawful discrimination in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he suffered pervasive acts of
discrimination when he refused to be coerced into signing the
voluntary severance program (VSP). He adds that he suffered
numerous adverse employment actions and his work environment became
unbearable.
On August 20, 2019, Mr. Armstrong, the Chief Executive Officer for
Williams, held a conference where he stated that approximately 350
employees similarly situated to Mr. Andrews elected to take the VSP
package. He went on to state that additional reductions in
workforce would be made despite the fact that 800 individuals
elected not to take the VSP. Therefore, the Defendants will be
specifically targeting and eliminating employees 55 years of age or
older despite the fact that they did not elect to take the VSP.
The Plaintiff alleges that the voluntary severance program and the
additional reductions in workforce projected by the Defendants are
a pretext for age discrimination. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks
all damages under the law for his hostile work environment claims.
Keith Andrews, who is 62 year old male, is an employee of
Williams.
Williams WPC is doing business in natural gas industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel C. Wilson, Esq.
DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
1835 Market Street, Suite 2950
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-391-4790
Facsimile: 215-501-5911
E-mail: samuel@dereksmithlaw.com
X FINANCIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of X Financial (NYSE: XYF).
Stockholders have until the deadline to petition the court to serve
as lead plaintiff.
X Financial (NYSE: XYF)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the
company's September 19, 2018 initial public stock offering (the
"IPO" or the "Offering").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 7, 2020
On November 20, 2018, X Financial held its first earnings call
after the IPO to discuss its financial results. As executives
explained on the call, the negative operational and financial
results reported in the day's press release had been caused by
market and other problems that had long preceded the IPO.
During the November 20, 2018 earnings call, analysts questioned X
Financial's executives about the rapidly contracting preferred
loans and rising delinquency rates. In response, they conceded
that low demand and "very high" delinquency rates for X Financial's
preferred loans had produced a cascading effect that decreased the
Company's overall financial results. As these executives
explained, plummeting demand and high default rates had, in turn,
forced the Company to make the "big [strategy change] to . . .
scale down the preferred loan business." Scaling down preferred
loans, meanwhile, had prompted "a change in product mix resulting
from a significant increase in the proportion of revenue generated
by Xiaoying Card Loan." The pivot to depending on card loans had,
in turn, caused a reduction in X Financial's "average loan ticket
size by 20% to even 25%" and also caused further increases in the
Company's overall delinquency rate, as card loans by nature
represented significantly higher risks.
In subsequent financial reports, X Financial has confirmed that the
problems described above started before the IPO.
On April 25, 2019, X Financial filed its annual report for 2018 on
Form 20-F. The report contained a chart entitled "Delinquency Rate
by Vintage of Xiaoying Preferred Loan," which illustrated the
dramatic increase in delinquency rates leading up to and during the
IPO—including in first, second, and third quarters of 2018—and
that such negative trends were accelerating.
Then on May 21, 2019, during X Financial's earnings call to discuss
the Company's first quarter 2019 results, defendant Tang admitted
that X Financial was unlikely to achieve significant loan or
revenue growth because its preferred loan business had failed "over
the last year" and that the Company was shelving the entire
business.
On November 22, 2019, X Financial's ADSs closed at $1.74 per ADS.
This price represented an 81.68% decline from the $9.50 per share
price at which X Financial's ADSs had been sold to the investing
public in the IPO.
The Complaint, filed on December 9, 2019, alleges that the
company's Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the
Registration Statement made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's total loan
facilitation amount was not growing, but rather was contracting;
(ii) the number of investors actively using X Financial's platform
was shrinking; (iii) demand from SMEs for the Company's preferred
loans was plummeting; (iv) the Company's preferred loans had
performed so poorly that it had begun drastically scaling back its
preferred loans in the first quarter of 2018, several months before
the IPO, and was in the process of phasing out such loans
completely; (v) demand for the Company's card loans was also
plummeting; (vi) the revenue and loan facilitation growth provided
in the Registration Statement leading up to the IPO was achieved by
relaxed credit and due diligence standards, under which the Company
had underwritten tens of millions of dollars' worth of poor quality
loans that suffered from a disproportionately high risk of default
as compared to the Company's earlier loan vintages; (vii) the
Company was suffering from accelerated delinquency rates from poor
quality loans that it had underwritten in the first, second, and
third quarters of 2018, which had caused the Company's delinquency
rate to sharply rise; (viii) the Company's product mix had
significantly deteriorated; (ix) the Company's net revenue was on
track to decline by 22% during the third quarter of 2018; and (x)
as a result, the Registration Statement was materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
For more information on the X Financial class action go to:
https://bespc.com/xyf
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.
Contact:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Phone: (212) 355-4648
Website: www.bespc.com
Email: investigations@bespc.com
fortunato@bespc.com
walker@bespc.com
[GN]
X FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded X Financial
(XYF). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details
about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
XYF Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/x-financial-loss-form?prid=5210&wire=1
X Financial (XYF)
XYF Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased X Financial
American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's September 19, 2018 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 7, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/x-financial-loss-form?prid=5210&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (i) the Company's total loan
facilitation amount was not growing, but rather was contracting;
(ii) the number of investors actively using X Financial's platform
was shrinking; (iii) demand from small- and medium-sized
enterprises for the Company's preferred loans was plummeting; (iv)
the Company's preferred loans had performed so poorly that it had
begun drastically scaling back its preferred loans in the first
quarter of 2018, several months before the initial public offering
("IPO"), and was in the process of phasing out such loans
completely; (v) demand for the Company's card loans was also
plummeting; (vi) the revenue and loan facilitation growth provided
in the registration statement leading up to the IPO was achieved by
relaxed credit and due diligence standards, under which the Company
had underwritten tens of millions of dollars' worth of poor quality
loans that suffered from a disproportionately high risk of default
as compared to the Company's earlier loan vintages; (vii) the
Company was suffering from accelerated delinquency rates from poor
quality loans that it had underwritten in the first, second, and
third quarters of 2018, which had caused the Company's delinquency
rate to sharply rise; (viii) the Company's product mix had
significantly deteriorated; (ix) the Company's net revenue was on
track to decline by 22% during the third quarter of 2018; and (x)
as a result, the Registration Statement was materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
[*] Caregivers Want Class Status in Opioid MDL
----------------------------------------------
Daily Mail UK reports that guardians caring for hundreds of
thousands of children born addicted to opioids since 2000 should be
grouped together as part of the class action lawsuit filed by local
governments and others against drug makers and sellers, their
lawyers argue.
The legal team is pushing for the harm done to these children and
their caretaker by the drug to be included in the massive legal
action playing out in a Cleveland, Ohio federal court.
In addition to certifying the guardians as a class, the attorneys
who filed the motion want US District Judge Dan Polster to create a
national registry to identify children diagnosed with neonatal
abstinence syndrome.
The hope is to see a medical panel formed to recommend the best
ways to treat such children, and provide money for those efforts as
quickly as possible.
'The urgency of this is, the longer we wait, the more difficult it
is to help these children,' said Cleveland attorney Marc Dann, Esq.
who filed the motion along with attorneys from Texas and
Louisiana.
There currently are about 400 guardians for children born addicted
to opioids who have filed individual claims in the pending lawsuit
that Dann said could be folded into the larger group.
The motion filed this week was made initially on behalf of a
handful guardians in Ohio and California and seeks to include
guardians from across the country, he said.
The total number of children born addicted to opioids since 2000 is
around 400,000 with between 20,000 and 30,000 NAS babies born each
year, Dann said
Some states have created registries for children diagnosed with NAS
while others have not, Dann said.
In most cases, the children's guardians are grandparents or someone
who has been appointed to that role.
A national registry would allow scientists to accumulate more data
to refine how best to treat these children at each stage of their
development, Dann said.
Research has found that children born addicted to opioids are at
greater risk of suffering from developmental delays, medical
problems and are susceptible to becoming addicts themselves as they
grow older, Dann said.
'We haven't started this process as a society to figure this out,'
he said.
'It's a large effort, no question, to get there.'
As do other plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, attorneys for
the guardians seeking to be certified as a group allege the
pharmaceutical industry engaged in a conspiracy to increase the
number of people addicted to prescription painkillers, a claim the
industry has denied in court and in motions.
'Over time, as science disproved the claims of the pharmaceutical
industry, those parents were driven to the streets to buy
manufactured opioids or heroin,' Dann said.
'They went from being customers of doctors to customers of the
cartels.' [GN]
[*] Cleveland Suit for Babies With Opiods Seek Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Heisig, writing for cleveland.com, reports that attorneys
representing the caretakers of babies born with opioids in their
system asked a federal judge in Cleveland to grant them
class-action status against drug companies they believe should pay
for some of the long-term care of the children.
The attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Dan Polster Tuesday,
January 7, to bundle together claims made by guardians of the
children against drug manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies.
If granted, the move would also add more plaintiffs to a group that
already consists of about 2,000 clients, attorney Marc Dann said.
The request provides another battleground against drug companies
who have faced lawsuits from cities, counties and states in recent
years that accuse them of fueling an epidemic that led to hundreds
of thousands of deaths nationwide over the past two decades.
The lawsuits over the children who suffer from neonatal abstinence
syndrome are mostly being heard in federal court. The syndrome is a
sort-of catch-all for the symptoms exhibited by babies exposed to
addictive drugs in the womb, often opioids, and what they
experience after their birth. The withdrawal can sometimes last for
months.
Evidence on the long-term impact of exposure to opioids in the womb
is limited, but some studies suggest cognitive and behavioral
issues could last well into childhood and adolescence.
The lawyers for the guardians want to provide a unified front
against the drug companies and reach a settlement that would pay to
study the syndrome's effects and put money toward caring for the
children, according to a brief filed by the groups' attorneys.
"This generation of children is not yet lost, but without
intervention by this Court, they will be," the brief states.
If Polster grants plaintiffs class-actions status, the class would
include several groups, the largest being the guardians of children
born after May 25, 2000 who were diagnosed with an opioid-related
neonatal abstinence syndrome and children whose mothers received a
prescription for painkillers prior to the birth.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that an infant
suffering from opioid withdrawal is born about every 15 minutes
nationwide.
There were 17,373 discharges due to neonatal abstinence among state
residents from Ohio hospitals between 2006 and 2018, according the
state Department of Health.
Dann, a former Ohio attorney general who now practices consumer law
in Cleveland, is one of the head lawyers for the group.
The lawsuits filed by parents, family members, adoptive parents and
other caretakers of children is a subset of a larger set of
litigation based in the federal court in Cleveland seeking billions
of dollars from drug companies. The lawsuits accuse manufacturers
of emphasizing the benefits of painkillers while downplaying the
addictive risks, and distributors and pharmacies of not doing
enough to flag suspiciously large orders of pills.
Drug companies have denied any legal liability.
The focus of the federal litigation, which is overseen by Polster
in Cleveland, has mostly been on the municipalities. This include
settlement negotiations and one trial ended by agreements worth
eight figures with several manufacturers and distributors. Other
lawsuits filed by states are in state courts across the country.
Polster has said he would like to see the drug companies reach
settlements to resolve all the cases it faces nationwide.
The attorneys for the guardians wrote that the ongoing negotiations
between drug companies and the states and municipalities put them
at a disadvantage, as any money the governments might receive is
not guaranteed to go toward treating opioid-affected children.
Dann said his team has not been invited to participate in talks.
"If there's going to be a comprehensive settlement of this,
certainly the defendants are going to want an ultimate release,"
Dann said. "The only way to do that is to address this issue."
Spokespeople for the lead attorneys for the cities and counties did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The guardians are also concerned that any money local and state
governments will receive will not go toward the guardians.
Those concerns are exacerbated by how state governments used money
in a large settlement reached with Big Tobacco in the late 1990s.
Much of the $246 billion went into general funds and did not
address cigarette use.
The brief also cites a plan Cuyahoga County put forth on how it
would spend some of the settlement money it received, and said none
of that money would affect children up to age 5 who were born with
opioids in their system.
"Unless the Court certifies a class of Guardians, there is a real
danger that, despite years of effort, this (litigation) will end
without helping any victims at all," the brief states. [GN]
[*] Implementation of Calif. Arbitration Law Temporarily Blocked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooley LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that California
Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that was intended to limit the
ability of employers to require mandatory arbitration of certain
statutory employment claims as of January 1, 2020.
This new law, AB 51, stated employers could no longer require, as a
condition of employment, continued employment or the receipt of any
employment-related benefit, that a job applicant or employee waive
any right, forum or procedure for an alleged violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (which, among other
things, prohibits discrimination or harassment based upon a
protected classification and prohibits retaliation for engaging in
protected activity) or the California Labor Code, including any
requirement that an employee either arbitrate such claims or
affirmatively opt out of an arbitration agreement or provision.
Rather, AB 51 required employees to voluntarily and affirmatively
choose to enter into such an arbitration agreement or provision.
Cooley had previously anticipated legal challenges to this state
law, including arguments that it is preempted by federal law under
the Federal Arbitration Act, which governs arbitration agreements
involving parties engaged in interstate commerce. The US Chamber of
Commerce and other business groups filed a lawsuit arguing that AB
51 was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and should be ruled
invalid. On December 30, 2019, Judge Kimberly Mueller of the US
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a
temporary restraining order, blocking AB 51 from taking effect
until the court's next hearing on January 10, 2020. At that
hearing, the court will consider whether to grant a preliminary
injunction that would block implementation of AB 51 until the case
is fully resolved. We will monitor for further developments and
issue another Alert regarding the outcome of that hearing.
What does this mean for employers?
Implementation of AB 51 did not take place as scheduled on January
1, 2020, given the federal court's order. However, we should find
out quickly this year whether its implementation will be suspended
for a longer period of time. In the interim, employers are
permitted to continue to require arbitration of FEHA claims and
Labor Code claims as a condition of employment or continued
employment. Please contact us if you would like to discuss this
issue or broader issues regarding your employee arbitration
agreements.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
[*] Title III Gift Card Litigation Expected to Continue This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew P. Horvitz, Esq. --- mhorvitz@goulstonstorrs.com -- and
Andrew J. Ferren, Esq. -- aferren@goulstonstorrs.com -- of Goulston
& Storrs, in an article for Washington Business Journal, report
that it is a little-known fact that in 1994, Blockbuster video was
the first store to display pre-paid gift cards for sale. Unlike VHS
rentals, the gift card industry has only grown in popularity. Gift
cards from major retailers were once again at the top of many
holiday wish lists. Considered a more polite version of cash, gift
cards take the stress and guesswork out of gift giving. They also
allow recipients to skip the dreaded "returns" line and choose the
specific items, models, sizes, and colors they desire.
Recently, gift cards have found popularity with a new group:
plaintiffs' lawyers. In the fall, a small number of plaintiffs
filed over 100 virtually identical class action lawsuits in New
York federal courts. These lawsuits allege that retailers,
restaurants, and other businesses violate Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City and State
Human Rights Laws by failing to provide gift cards with Braille,
the tactile writing system of raised dots that can be "read" by
people who are blind or have low vision.
Now, these types of claims are also beginning to be filed in
California. Along with New York, California is a hotbed of
disability rights litigation because those states' laws provide for
compensatory damages (unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act).
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits
discrimination against disabled persons in places of "public
accommodation." Generally, businesses that provide goods or
services to the public must provide disabled individuals with the
same type of access to those goods and services as they provide to
individuals who are not disabled, and must remove certain existing
barriers to access.
Although individuals may have legitimate claims under Title III --
and the overall goal of increasing accessibility is laudable -- the
majority of these lawsuits are filed by serial litigants and a
small group of attorneys who are largely apathetic about the
substantive claims and, instead, focus on quick settlements for
nuisance amounts. The motivation for these serial litigants is the
ADA's private enforcement incentive. Plaintiffs who prevail on
their claims generally recover attorneys' fees, expert witness
costs, and other legal expenses.
If you do business in Greater Washington, chances are you've been
in this behemoth building, perhaps for a gala, exhibit or our very
own Book of Lists Celebration in years past. Its red brick exterior
and relatively modest massing belie the grand space inside, a
roofed courtyard marked by eight, 75-foot Corinthian columns (made
of brick but painted to look like marble). Not everyone loved the
building when it was completed in 1887 to house the burgeoning
Pension Office, but everyone agreed it was not only immense in
size, but also an immense accomplishment.
Although the ADA was enacted long before the ubiquity of websites
and e-commerce, businesses are frequently targeted with claims that
their websites and mobile applications are inaccessible to blind
and visually-impaired individuals. Now, using similar reasoning,
plaintiffs have alleged that gift cards must be "independently
accessible" and that they and all other legally blind individuals
have been denied equal access to the goods and services available
through gift cards.
In addition to seeking statutory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees, these plaintiffs request that retailers modify
their policies and provide auxiliary aids with gift cards. Among
other things, these plaintiffs demand that:
1. The name and denomination of every retail gift card
and its packaging be printed in Braille.
2. Other pertinent information, such as terms of use,
privacy policies, ability to ascertain gift card balance,
and restrictions be printed in Braille on the card,
affixed to the card or inserted in the packaging.
3. The size and texture of Braille gift cards be different
from regular gift cards to allow blind and visually
impaired consumers to find them.
The demands raise complex questions relating to the potential
expense and burden with implementation.
The plaintiffs' novel theories may be distinguishable from ADA
claims against websites and mobile applications in a number of
ways. For example, the ADA does not specifically require the use of
Braille. Instead, businesses have various options to provide
effective communication to individuals with disabilities. Moreover,
the ADA does not require businesses to alter "inventory to include
accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate
use by, individuals with disabilities."
These and other legal issues may provide businesses with viable
defenses. However, the plaintiffs' legal theory about requiring
Braille gift cards is in its infancy. It is too early to predict
whether it will gain traction and expand to other types of written
materials.
In the meantime, businesses should be prepared to address the
variety of litigation risks under the ADA and consult experienced
legal counsel to address any concerns.
To stay apprised of the latest developments around Title III and
the ADA, as well as other legal news, please visit G&S Stay
Connected.
Goulston & Storrs is an Am Law 200 law firm, with offices in
Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. With over 200 lawyers across
multiple disciplines, Goulston & Storrs is a real estate powerhouse
with leading-edge litigation, corporate, capital markets, finance
and private client and trust practices. [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
*********
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 ***