/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200220.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 20, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 37 Headlines 500.COM LIMITED: Faces Jun Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ALABAMA: Convicted Felons Can Pursue Right to Vote Class Action AMERIPRISE AUTO: Blumenthal Files Class Action Over Rest Breaks APLA HEALTH: Enfield Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code APPLE INC: Class Action Over iPhone 7 Audio Chip Defect Narrowed ARAB BANK: Israeli Victims of Palestinian Attacks File Class Suit AUSTRALIA: Kiwis Want Russell Crowe to Join Discrimination Suit AUSTRALIA: Online Petition Calls for Climate Change Class Action BEDROCK FUNDING: Hill Seeks Overtime Pay for Collectors BELSTAFF: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Williams Claims BEYOND MEAT: Rigrodsky & Long Alerts Investors to Class Action BITFINEX: Faces Consolidated Class Action Over Market Manipulation BRISTOL-MYERS: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling BUGS INC: Fails to Pay Exterminators for Overtime, Kaiser Claims CAMELBAK: Faces Class Action Over Defective Eddy Water Bottles CANADA NORTHWEST TERRITORIES: Rep. Action Mulled on Privacy Breach CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Court Rejects US$6.5MM Class Action Settlement CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Class Action Over Facial Recognition Software CLEARVIEW: NJ Bans Use of Facial-Recognition App by Police CONTINENTAL AUTOBAHN: Nofal Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics CSS INDUSTRIES: Post Wants More Info on IG Design Merger Deal CSX TRANSPORTATION: Urges Court to Reject Class Action Revival CV SCIENCES: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims D&M CARRIERS: Bromlow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Residents DELTA AIR: Kickbacks Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action DELTA AIR: L.A. Homeowners File Class Action Over Jet Fuel Dump DOWNHOLE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Esquivel Claims EARTHMED LLC: Mair Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective EOS IT: Herrera et al. Seek OT Pay, Breaks for Field Engineers EXELON CORP: Texas Court to Hear Claims vs Work Management EXPRESS COURIER: Ryte FLSA Suit Moved from Georgia to S.D. Texas FACEBOOK INC: High Court Refuses to Review BIPA Ruling in Patel FACEBOOK INC: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling FLORIDA: Agriculture Dept. Seeks to Overturn Citrus Case Ruling FORD MOTOR: Settles Fiesta/Focus Transmission Class Action for $30M FORD MOTOR: Tershakovec et al. Seek Class Certification GERON CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 23 Deadline GERON CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Alerts Investors to Class Action GOOGLE INC: 9 States Want Judge to Reject Wi-Spy Settlement GOOGLE INC: Nexus 6P Class Action Settlement Payout Underway GRAIN PROCESSING: To Make Settlement Payments in a Few Months GRAND CARIBBEAN: Faces Winters TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls HERITAGE COMPANY: Yasevich Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Reps. IDEAL BUSINESS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls INSURANCE CARE: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls JONES DAY: Seeks Sanctions Against Sanford, Female Ex-Associates JPMORGAN CHASE: Dunn Alleges Discriminatory Employment Policy KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Sloatman TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls LLR INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Sperring Class Suit LOANDEPOT.COM: Must Face Robocall Class Action, Court Rules MATTEL INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Feb. 24 Deadline MISSISSIPPI: Underfunding Problems Persist Amid Prison Class Suit MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of March 3 Deadline NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Cedeno in Gulino Suit NOVO NORDISK: Securities-Fraud Suits Win Class Certification OPERA LIMITED: Rosen Law Announces Filing of Class Action OPERA LTD: Robbins Geller Notifies Investors of March 24 Deadline OPERA LTD: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of Class Action PEARSON: Faces Class Action Over Inclusive Access Programs PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: McRae Seeks to Certify Class PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Property Owners' Suit Over Pipeline Certified PLATINUM PLUS: Faces Tompkins TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action PPG INDUSTRIES: Halley Seeks Initial Settlement Approval PRS PARTNERS: Faces James Suit Over Unpaid Wages PTTEP: Loses Bid to Throw Out Vital Evidence in Oil Spill Lawsuit QUDIAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Class Action Filing RAYMOND JAMES: Sued Over Reverse-Churning in Fee-based Accounts REHRIG PACIFIC: Andrade Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California RETIREMENT CONCEPTS: Lawyers Preparing Class Action Lawsuit RUNWAY TOWING: Rosen Law LLC Files Class Action in New York SIRIUS XM: Settles Robocall Class Action for $32 Million SOS SECURITY: Use of Consumer Report Violates FCRA, Williams Says TIP TOP: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Brake Booster Pump Problems TP-LINK USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzales Class Suit U.S. GOVERNMENT: Climate Change Class Action Dismissed UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Alves Suit over Spam Text Messages UBER: Can't Force Philadelphia Woman to Settle Claims UC SAN DIEGO MEDICAL: Suit Seeks Damages for 800 Surgery Patients UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Dickinson Wright Attorneys Discuss Ruling UNITED STATES: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review of Ruling in ACRL Suit URBAN ONE: Faces Class Suit for Unpaid Overtime, Harassment WALMART INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site WESTPAC BANKING: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action WESTPAC BANKING: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of Class Action YEDI INC: Faces Slade ADA Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site YORK RISK: Sumers Labor Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal. [*] TRACED Act Passage May Lead to More TCPA Enforcement Activity ********* 500.COM LIMITED: Faces Jun Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yang Jun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 500.COM LIMITED, ZHENGMING PAN, and QIANG YUAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00806 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2020), is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 500.com securities between April 27, 2018, and December 31, 2019, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 27, 2018, 500.com filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2017. Attached to the 2017 20-F were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, signed by the Individual Defendants, attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. In the 2017 20-F, the Company stated that the principal activity of its Japanese subsidiary, 500.com Nihon Co., Ltd., was investment holding, and that it had no substantive operations of its own. On April 22, 2019, 500.com filed with the SEC its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018. Attached to the 2018 20-F were SOX certifications, signed by the Individual Defendants, attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. The Plaintiff alleges that the Company's statements contained in filings were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 500.com executives and consultants engaged in a bribery scheme with Japanese officials in an effort to gain favor in a bid to run an upcoming Japanese casino resort; (ii) consequently, 500.com was in violation of Japanese anti-bribery laws and its Code of Ethics; and (iii) as a result, the Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On December 31, 2019, 500.com issued a press release announcing that a Special Investigation Committee ("SIC") was formed by the Board to investigate illegal money transfers and the role played by consultants following the arrest of one current consultant and two former consultants by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office. On this news, shares of 500.com fell $1.08 per share, or 12.56%, to close at $7.52 per share on January 2, 2020, the following trading day, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased 500.com securities during the Class Period. 500.com, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide online gaming services primarily in the People's Republic of China and Europe.[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 ALABAMA: Convicted Felons Can Pursue Right to Vote Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that convicted felons who lost their right to vote under Alabama law can't pursue their challenge to that law in a class action, a federal district court in the state said. The plaintiffs, who said they can't have their voting rights restored until they pay off all the financial obligations associated with their cases, didn't show class certification was necessary, Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama said. Based on the complaint, there's no possibility the proposed representatives will receive a Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote, be pardoned. [GN] AMERIPRISE AUTO: Blumenthal Files Class Action Over Rest Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc., failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods as required by California law. The Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. RIC2000006, is currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court for the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here. According to the lawsuit filed in the Riverside Superior Court, The Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc., allegedly failed to provide their employees with meal and rest breaks because allegedly Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc., did not have a policy to provide their hourly employees thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work. California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work. Additionally, the complaint further alleges The Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc., committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal and rest periods by PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor Code. If you would like to know more about the Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc., lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims, contact one of their attorneys today. [GN] APLA HEALTH: Enfield Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE ENFIELD v. APLA HEALTH & WELLNESS and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 2OSTCV02487 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that APLA has committed numerous California Labor Code violations against Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees. According to the complaint, APLA violated Labor Code because it failed to pay the Plaintiff and other former and current hourly, non-exempt employees overtime wage, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment. APLA also failed to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees the requisite 30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every five hours of work throughout their employment, and the Plaintiff did not validly waive said meal periods. APLA did not completely relieve the Plaintiff of all duties during the meal periods. APLA also did not pay to the Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at the Plaintiff's regular rate of compensation for each workday that one or more statutory meal periods was not provided, says the complaint. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff from 2010 through 2018. APLA is a federally qualified health center providing primary medical care, oral health care, mental health services, HIV testing, STD screening/treatment and health education and HIV prevention services focusing on low-income gay and bisexual men of color and transgender individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 APPLE INC: Class Action Over iPhone 7 Audio Chip Defect Narrowed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Rossignol, writing for MacRumors, reports that a class action lawsuit accusing Apple of violating consumer laws and breaching its warranties over an alleged iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus audio chip defect has been allowed to proceed, but the case has been narrowed. U.S. district judge Jon Tigar on Thursday, January 30, denied Apple's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty under California law, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment in the form of an alternative remedy. The court granted Apple's motion to dismiss the remaining claims, but the plaintiffs have an opportunity to amend their complaint within 21 days. Filed in May 2019, the class action lawsuit alleged that "the materials used in the iPhone's external casing are insufficient and inadequate to protect the internal parts," eventually resulting in the audio chip losing electrical contact with the logic board due to "flexion" of the device during regular use. The defect results in multiple issues on affected devices, ranging from a grayed-out speaker button to customers not being heard during phone calls and FaceTime video chats, according to the complaint. The initial complaint sought an order that would require Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace the affected iPhones and to extend the warranties of the devices for a reasonable period of time. The plaintiffs also sought damages "likely in the millions of dollars" that would be divided among affected customers. The class action has been consolidated in Northern California court. "Loop Disease" In an internal document obtained by MacRumors in May 2018, Apple acknowledged a microphone issue affecting some iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus models. The memo to Apple Stores and Apple Authorized Service Providers described the same audio issues mentioned in the class action lawsuits. The alleged defect is commonly referred to as "Audio IC issues" and it is also informally known as "Loop Disease" on the web. Apple's document said service providers could request a "warranty exception" for affected iPhones, which resulted in free repairs for at least some customers, but that abruptly ended in July 2018 after Apple deleted the document. Since then, some Apple employees have failed to acknowledge the internal guidelines ever existed, resulting in many customers having to pay an out-of-warranty fee of over $300 in the United States for a fix. Of course, some customers have managed to argue their way to a free repair, but mileage varies. iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus devices still within Apple's limited one-year warranty period or covered by AppleCare+ remain eligible for a free repair, but the audio chip issues usually take time to manifest, and warranty coverage has lapsed on many of the devices since they were released in September 2016. [GN] ARAB BANK: Israeli Victims of Palestinian Attacks File Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yumna Patel, writing for Mondoweiss, reports that it was supposed to be a routine run to the bank. As the Executive Director of the Aida Youth Center (AYC), Anas Abu Srour frequents the Bethlehem branch of the Arab Bank, overseeing transfers and transactions for the organization. At the beginning of January, Abu Srour stopped by the bank to pick up the new check books he had ordered two weeks prior, as he had done countless times before. But when he arrived, he was told that his application had been denied, and any further questions should be referred to the compliance department at the bank. After a few days of following up with the bank, he received a call that left him utterly confused. "They told me that I had to close the account of the youth center and move banks as soon as possible," he told Mondoweiss from his office in the Aida Refugee Camp. When he asked why the account was being closed, Abu Srour said he was told it was an "internal policy" decision. "They refused to elaborate more than that," he said. The incident with the AYC came just a few days after a class action lawsuit was filed against the Jordan-based Arab Bank by the families of Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks. The plaintiffs, numbering over a thousand Israelis, are suing the bank for NIS 20 billion ($5.8 billion) in compensation, claiming the bank "knowingly supported and financed terror groups that carried out attacks that claimed hundreds of lives," the Times of Israel reported in December. The suit claims that the Arab Bank played an integral role in the attacks, knowingly funding individual Palestinian attackers as well as organized groups. Abu Srour said he immediately suspected his youth organization was being arbitrarily targeted in relation to the Israeli lawsuit filed against the bank. "It seems that the bank doesn't want to risk being subjected to more lawsuits in the event that any Palestinians with Arab Bank accounts were to commit what is labeled as a 'terror attack' against Israelis," he said. What Abu Srour cannot understand is why a local youth organization that provides after-school music and arts programs to disadvantaged children, was getting caught in the mix. Pattern of behavior Mondoweiss learned that the incident with the AYC was not an isolated event, and that in recent months the Arab Bank has reportedly been closing the accounts, or refusing to open new accounts, for other community-based organizations, former Palestinian prisoners, and the families of Palestinians killed by Israelis. Mondoweiss reached out to several community-based organizations across the Bethlehem area that were reportedly subjected to similar measures taken against the AYC. One youth sports organization, that asked to remain unnamed, said that they recently attempted to open an account with the Arab Bank, but found the process to be "unusually difficult." After weeks of back and forth, the organization decided it wasn't worth the hassle, and went with another bank instead. The group said while they were never given a formal answer on why it was so difficult to open an account, they "didn't rule out" the possibility that it was politically motivated. In another case, 30-year-old Ahmad Salah from the al-Khader village, was recently notified that his application to open up an account with the Arab Bank was denied. Salah, a former prisoner, wanted to switch from his current bank to the Arab Bank, which has a branch that is closer to his home. "When I returned two weeks after applying to check on my status, the employee checked my file, and he suddenly became shy, as if he was ashamed," Salah told Mondoweiss. The employee asked Salah to take a seat, and his manager would come to explain the situation to him. When the manager arrived, Salah was shocked to hear his answer. "The manager came and told me 'we can't open an account for you because you were in Israeli prison," Salah recounted. "I asked, 'what does this have to do with anything?' This is a Palestinian bank, not an Israeli bank." Salah alleges that the manager told him the bank was "having a lot of issues in court with the Israelis," and due to pressures from the Israeli government, couldn't "take the risk" of opening an account for someone with his profile. "I was in total disbelief," he said, still visibly frustrated by the incident. "I never thought that being arrested by the occupation, simply for fighting for my rights as a Palestinian, would affect something so simple as trying to open a bank account. It's very disappointing." A controversial internal policy The current lawsuit being filed against the Arab Bank is based on a similar suit filed in 2004 by American citizens who were victims of Palestinian attacks. The bank reached a confidential settlement with the plaintiffs at the time. The apparent success of that lawsuit, alleging that the bank facilitated the attacks by opening private bank accounts for the families of Palestinian attackers through which they received money from donors, laid the foundation for the current suit. According to a former staff member at the Arab Bank, who held a managerial position at West Bank branch of the bank, the company has been employing a series of efforts to prevent itself from becoming susceptible to such lawsuits. The staffer, who asked to remain anonymous, told Mondoweiss that one of the policies the bank employed was curbing its acceptance of "risk-prone" groups and individuals. In other words: former political prisoners and their families and the families of Palestinians killed by Israel. He alleged that for years, the bank has been using a filtering software called "SafeWatch", marketed by its parent company EastNets, as an "Anti-Money Laundering & Counter Terrorist Financing" tool. "Any time an individual would apply to open an account with the bank, we would run their information through this software," he told Mondoweiss. "If their name brought up any sort of political record, they would immediately be considered for disqualification, pending further investigation into their background," he said. "If you were in prison, or your dad or brother were killed by Israel for example, you would be flagged." He said he had not seen the software used with civil society or community-based organizations, but he "would not be surprised" if this is now the case, due to the bank's fears that such organizations could be tied to "terror activity" by the Israeli or American government -- as has been done in the past. "At the end of the day, the bank is going to do all that it can to not lose its money," he told Mondoweiss. "Even if it comes at the expense of the Palestinian citizens." Mondoweiss reached out several times to the main branch of the Arab Bank in Ramallah. After several requests for comment on pattern of closing the accounts of community organizations and refusing to open accounts for ex-prisoners, the bank refused to give a statement on the matter. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Kiwis Want Russell Crowe to Join Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Alisha Rouse, writing for Daily Mail Australia, reports that New Zealanders claiming they are being racially discriminated against while living in Australia want a Hollywood star to join a potential class action lawsuit. The expats say 'racist laws' give them 'inferior rights', including not being able to vote, receive Centrelink payments or obtain student loans. Campaign group Kiwis in Australia are pushing for a class action lawsuit to remove strict immigration laws and have asked Oscar winner Russell Crowe for support. The actor has appeared on stamps in Australia and has two children born in the country but still struggled to obtain citizenship. He was born in New Zealand, but lives in Nana Glen near Coffs Harbour and until 2018 was married to Australian actress Danielle Spencer. 'If Russell Crowe were to become actively involved, it could be a game changer as the government would be under considerably more pressure to change the law to make it all go away,' the campaign said. 'One of the reasons for a class action is it prevents them offering to 'do a deal' with some people and not others.' The campaign group is demanding a change to laws to make it easier for people from New Zealand to get citizenship, and all the social security that comes with it. Currently New Zealander must have lived in Australia before February 26, 2001 to be recognised as a permanent resident for citizenship purposes. The law was introduced under the Howard government in 2001, and stripped Special Category Visa holders (SCVs) of access to citizenship and working age social security payments. New Zealanders who arrive in Australia using a New Zealand passport automatically receive an SCV provided they meet certain security, character and health requirements. This allows them to stay and work in Australia indefinitely, but does not mean they can become citizens. Kiwis in Australia said their goal was to remove this rule. 'The aim is to nullify all the conditions of prior residence so that all New Zealand citizens here on an SCV are again 'permanent residents',' the group explained. 'And thereby become eligible to apply for citizenship after four years. This would make most Kiwis eligible to apply immediately if we win. 'The core argument is that most post 2001 SCV holders/NZ citizens are born in New Zealand (unsurprisingly), and therefore the conditions of prior residence -- which only apply to NZ citizens -- have a racially discriminatory effect. ''National origin' is considered a 'race' under the law.' There are about 520,000 New Zealand-born people in Australia. If someone is not an Australian citizen, they are not able to vote, receive most social security payments or get student loans. Crowe opened up in 2015 about how his application for Australian citizenship had been rejected by multiple governments overs the years. 'They changed the law for New Zealanders,' the Hollywood heavyweight complained. 'No matter how long you'd been in the country, if you weren't in Australia for the majority of 2000 to 2002 -- when I was particularly busy filming overseas -- you can't become a citizen. Crowe's only option is to apply for a visa based on 'special talent' and try to negotiate a citizenship at a later date. His family moved to Australia when he was four years-old, before briefly returning to New Zealand for a few years. He then came back to Australia as a 21-year-old and starred on soap Neighbours in the late 1980s. Crowe has previously called his immigration status 'unreasonable' after being recognised by the country on a number of occasions. 'I've been awarded the Federation medal, I've been voted one of Australia's 50 national treasures,' he explained. 'I've even had my face on an Australian stamp, the only non-Australian to do so, apart from the Queen, of course.' The actor also has personal ties to the country, having been married to Australian singer Danielle Spencer, who he's since separated from and with whom he has two Australian-born sons, Charlie, 16, and Tennyson, 13. As a massive rugby league fan, he bought into the South Sydney Rabbitohs team, which he now co-owns. The club went on to win their first Premiership in 43 years under his reign, when they beat the Canterbury Bulldogs in the 2014 Grand Final. New Zealanders on a SCV can apply for permanent residency after five years, as long as they had a taxable income at or above an income threshold for all four income years before lodging an application. The threshold is $53,900. A year after becoming a permanent resident, they can then apply for citizenship. Daily Mail Australia has reached out to Crowe for comment. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Online Petition Calls for Climate Change Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sky News reports that a new online petition calling for a class action lawsuit to commence against the Morrison government for its "failure to act on climate change" is simply "dripping in partisan nature," says Queensland Shadow Tourism Minister David Crisafulli. The floated class action suit against the federal government already has over 63,000 signatures, with a total target of 75,000. As part of the Change.Org online petition, allegations are being levelled against the Morrison government that it has "failed to increase its emissions targets [and] failed to increase the renewable energy targets and failed the people of Australia". "They use dodgy numbers, they use dodgy arguments, and this is what we've come to expect," Mr Crisafulli told Sky News host Paul Murray. Mr Crisafulli said it would be "wonderful if we could have proper debate" about environmental policy instead of resorting to these "angry" tactics. "You have this class action and this angry nature, it will go nowhere," he said. "In the end it does nothing other than to continue to divide us". [GN] BEDROCK FUNDING: Hill Seeks Overtime Pay for Collectors ------------------------------------------------------- MISTI HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEDROCK FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00165 (W.D. Tex., February 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated hourly-paid individuals who worked as collectors for the Defendant in the three-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint, time and one half for any hours worked over 40 in a work week and also refused to compensate for off-clock hours. Bedrock Funding LLC provides credit and financial services on a multi-state basis in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE of CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com BELSTAFF: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Williams Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BELSTAFF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01134 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the rights of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated people with visual impairments under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the Defendant's website, www.belstaff.com is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Belstaff is a clothing company that owns and operates www.belstaff.com which offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NK 07601 Tel: (201)282-6500 Fax: (201)282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com BEYOND MEAT: Rigrodsky & Long Alerts Investors to Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Beyond Meat, Inc. ("Beyond Meat" or the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: BYND) between May 2, 2019 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased shares of Beyond Meat during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Beyond Meat, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (i) Beyond Meat's termination of its supply agreement with Don Lee Farms constituted a breach of that agreement, thus exposing the Company to foreseeable legal liability and reputational harm; (ii) Beyond Meat and certain of its employees had doctored and omitted material information from a food safety consultant's report, which the Company represented as accurate to Don Lee Farms; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on January 27, 2020, post-market, Don Lee issued a press release entitled "Judge Rules Don Lee Farms Likely to Obtain a Judgment. Beyond Meat's CFO and Others Named Individually for Fraud." The press release stated, in part, that "[a] judge has ruled Don Lee Farms proved the probable validity of its claim that Beyond Meat breached its manufacturing agreement with Don Lee Farms" and that "[i]n a separate motion before a different Judge, the Court granted Don Lee Farms' request to name Beyond Meat Chief Financial Officer Mark Nelson, Senior Quality Assurance Manager Jessica Quetsch and Director of Operations Anthony Miller in its fraud claims which allege they intentionally doctored and omitted material information from a food safety consultant's report, and then delivered that doctored report to Don Lee Farms and affirmatively represented that it was the complete opinion of the consultant." On this news, shares of Beyond Meat fell over 3%, closing at $120.12 per share on January 28, 2020, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. Contact: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Tel: (888) 969-4242, (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com E-mail: info@rl-legal.com sdr@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com [GN] BITFINEX: Faces Consolidated Class Action Over Market Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kollen Post, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that the four class-action suits against Bitfinex, Tether and parent company iFinex over alleged market manipulation leading to Bitcoin's (BTC) 2017 bull market have been consolidated -- with implications for every BTC buyer since April 2017. Per an order dated Jan. 24 and filed Jan. 27 from Judge Failla of the court of the Southern District of New York (SDNY), four complaints have been consolidated. Plaintiffs Leibowitz, Young, Faubus and Ebanks -- as well as assorted sub-listed parties in each of those cases -- will now have their cases heard jointly. The original allegations and controversy surrounding Bitfinex, Tether The class-action suits against iFinex and its daughter companies crypto exchange Bitfinex and stablecoin operator Tether allege that those companies worked together to create Bitcoin's infamous price bubble at the end of 2017. These complaints followed similar research that appeared this summer. The potential class pool for these cases is massive, potentially including anyone who has bought Bitcoin since April. The relationship between iFinex, Bitfinex and Tether has been the source of considerable controversy, with one of the complaints in this class-action including the below schema (BFXWW and BFXNA are the names of Bitfinex's legal registration): Ebanks' complaint alleges that the relationship between these entities was deliberately opaque to allow illegal activity, explaining: "Despite defendants' best efforts, the close interconnections between Tether and Bitfinex were exposed, in part, through the leak of documents from offshore legal services provider Appleby (colloquially dubbed the "Paradise Papers" leak) in November 2017." A representative from Appleby reached out to Cointelegraph after publication to identify the source of the referenced information as the Saint Kitts and Nevis corporate registry as publicized by the ICIJ, rather than Appleby. A separate legal action by the New York Attorney General also accuses the companies of using their concealed relationship to commit financial crimes. In that case, the attorney general believes that Bitfinex used its revenue to cover an $850 million dollar loss from Tether's reserves, which are designed to back its stablecoin USDT 1-to-1 with the United States Dollar. Who will lead the four cases? As Cointelegraph reported, the leadership of these four cases remains in question. Chronologically among complaints, Leibowitz was first to appear in October, while Young would file in Washington State in November before relocating to the SDNY earlier in January. Both Faubus and Ebanks would file after Young's relocation. [GN] BRISTOL-MYERS: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- John Beisner, Esq. -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Jessica Miller, Esq. -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- and Jordan Schwartz, Esq. -- jordan.schwartz@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that several pending rulings at the circuit court level have the potential to significantly influence class action law in 2020. Of greatest note, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit may determine the future of "negotiation" class actions, and pending decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and D.C. Circuits will address nationwide class actions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS). Additionally, district court developments in deceptive labeling consumer fraud class actions make certain types of claims in this area more likely. "Negotiation" class actions. The Sixth Circuit recently granted a petition in In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation to appeal the certification of an unprecedented "negotiation" class action. The negotiation approach was first detailed in a June 2019 paper titled "The Negotiation Class: A Cooperative Approach to Class Actions Involving Large Stakeholders" authored by Duke University School of Law professor Francis McGovern and Harvard Law School professor William Rubenstein. Under this framework, putative class members generate a "negotiating bloc" before settlement discussions with the defendant and are then bound to any settlement decision by a supermajority vote of the class, creating what the authors believe to be a simplified negotiation process. Plaintiffs favor negotiation classes because they create more pressure on defendants to settle and strengthen the bargaining power of individual plaintiffs. The defense bar, by contrast, disfavors negotiation classes and has argued that they violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Rules Enabling Act. Rule 23 on its face clearly contemplates certification of classes as a litigation tool for "suing" another party, not as a negotiation mechanism. Moreover, judicially expanding the class action device to achieve policy goals -- i.e., global settlements of controversies -- would effectively transform Rule 23, which is intended to be merely procedural, into a private attorney general statute. This would contravene the Rules Enabling Act, which states that federal procedural rules cannot be used to substantively change the law because they are simply promulgated by judges -- they are not enacted into law by Congress. The Sixth Circuit is likely to address these and other thorny issues in its much-anticipated ruling, the outcome of which could determine whether this burgeoning concept spreads to other courts. Nationwide class actions in the wake of BMS. Panels of the Seventh and D.C. Circuits are poised to decide whether federal courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, even where unnamed putative class members base their claims solely on events that occurred outside the forum jurisdiction. In Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to dismiss nationwide class allegations asserted on behalf of out-of-state grocery store employees for alleged violations of state common and statutory law. In Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., a federal judge in Illinois struck a class definition encompassing out-of-state class members allegedly injured by junk faxes under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Both cases aim to resolve a question left open by the landmark ruling in BMS, in which the Supreme Court held that state courts (including those presiding over sprawling mass tort proceedings) cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants when the plaintiffs' claims arise outside the forum state. In the wake of that decision, district courts have struggled to determine whether the holding in BMS applies to unnamed, absent class members. The district court in Molock held that the claims of unnamed, out-of-state class members were not barred by BMS, while the district court in Mussat reached the opposite conclusion. Based on the tenor of oral argument, it appears that both the Seventh and D.C. Circuits will hold that BMS does not apply to absent class members. Such a ruling will undermine the Supreme Court's reasoning in BMS because personal jurisdiction principles should apply with at least equal force to nationwide class actions. After all, each class member, named or unnamed, must bring his or her claims in a court that has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Decisions in both cases are likely to be rendered in the first half of 2020, potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court intervention regarding a critical issue implicating personal jurisdiction and class action principles. Deceptive labeling class actions. If the past year is any indication, the volume of false labeling class actions seems likely to rise in 2020. In these putative class actions, a plaintiff or handful of plaintiffs allege that a beverage, food, medication or other consumer product is deceptively labeled — for example, it allegedly misrepresents the product as "all natural." These cases have become increasingly attractive to plaintiffs' lawyers because they tend to survive motions to dismiss (and are harder to defeat at class certification than other consumer fraud lawsuits). As a result, defendants often feel pressured to settle, even if the claims are substantively meritless. With respect to class certification in particular, plaintiffs' lawyers have successfully argued that cases involving a single allegedly deceptive label involve fewer individualized questions than traditional consumer fraud class actions, which typically have varying representations and disparate consumer experiences. Plaintiffs' lawyers also have touted these cases as prime candidates for so-called "issues" class certification, in which a single purportedly common issue (e.g., whether the label is deceptive) is certified, leaving remaining individualized questions of causation and injury to separate follow-on proceedings. While some courts have recognized that these purportedly simple cases are in fact fraught with highly individualized questions (e.g., whether consumers interpreted the statement the same way and whether it affected purchasing decisions differently), these low-investment class actions remain appealing to plaintiffs' lawyers, and we likely will see many more in 2020. [GN] BUGS INC: Fails to Pay Exterminators for Overtime, Kaiser Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERICH KAISER on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BUGS, INC., ANITA MANCINI and GARY MANCINI, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-460 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 11, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all current and former exterminators who performed work for Defendants during the three-year period before the filing of this complaint. Kaiser works more than 40 hours a week as an exterminator and was being paid by the Defendants on a flat weekly amount without overtime, thus violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bugs Inc. is a full-service pest control company that provides extermination services in Fort Bend and Harris Counties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 CAMELBAK: Faces Class Action Over Defective Eddy Water Bottles -------------------------------------------------------------- Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that CamelBak is facing a class action alleging its "spill proof" eddy water bottles are defective and leak. Jessica Stewart and John Keller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint Jan. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against CamelBak Products LLC and CamelBak International LLC, alleging violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and violation of California and New York law, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. According to the class action, the plaintiffs purchased CamelBak "eddy" water bottles for between $12 and $13. They allege the bottles are falsely marketed and warranted as "spill proof." The plaintiffs also claim the design of the eddy is "fundamentally defective" because water runs, flows and falls out of the bottles and that the defendants had knowledge of the leaking issue but failed to issue a recall. The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, trial by jury and all other just relief. They are represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Neal Deckant, Brittany Scott and Scott Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA in Walnut Creek, Calif., and Miami. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 4:20-CV-00232-DMR [GN] CANADA NORTHWEST TERRITORIES: Rep. Action Mulled on Privacy Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Avery Zingel, writing for CBC News, reports that Andy Kudlak checked his mailbox in Paulatuk, N.W.T., hoping that a letter from the territorial government might include some test results he was waiting for. What he got instead was a privacy breach notification explaining that on Nov. 9, 2019, a third-party contractor "inadvertently faxed" his name, date of birth, blood results from Alberta company DynaLIFE Medical Labs, and his health care number to the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. "I didn't know what to say," said Kudlak. "I was disappointed because it went to another place." As per the territory's Health Information Act, the Northwest Territories Health and Social Services Authority reported the breach of Kudlak's privacy to the territory's privacy commissioner. The letter to Kudlak explains that the authority will advise the privacy commissioner about an investigation, any findings and how it will prevent similar events from happening in the future. Authority 'confident' issue won't persist The Northwest Territories Health and Social Services Authority declined an interview for this story, but departmental spokesperson Lisa Giovanetto said in an email that the breach was not caused by the health authority, and the authority is "confident" issues won't persist. Alberta Health Services and DynaLIFE were the two third parties involved in the breach. DynaLIFE Medical Labs provides diagnostic lab services in Alberta. Giovanetto clarified that the authority has contracts with DynaLIFE labs to provide lab testing for N.W.T. patients. The company did not respond to requests for comment. When asked whether third parties like DynaLIFE are bound by the N.W.T. privacy commissioner's recommendation to stop using faxes, Giovanetto said in some cases, fax technology is still needed to deliver care; some communities lack reliable access to internet and fax technology is still necessary. CRTC declares broadband internet access a basic service Giovanetto said Kudlak's results ended up being faxed to the wrong department in the N.W.T. because of recent changes to how Alberta Health Services manages patient information. On Nov. 3, Alberta Health Services migrated its provincial electronic information system to a new one called Connect Care, Giovanetto said. They moved to a province-wide laboratory information system called EPIC Beaker, which is used to transmit test results, including N.W.T. lab tests. During that migration, the results for N.W.T. lab tests were arriving inconsistently, said Giovanetto. Alberta Health Services temporarily resorted to faxing results, but some fax numbers were mixed up, she said. Once the N.W.T. health authority learned of the situation, it stopped all faxing from EPIC Beaker. Clinical and technical teams in both Alberta and the N.W.T. were formed to troubleshoot the Alberta health electronic information system. Class-action lawsuit Kudlak says his complaint has been passed on to Cooper Regel, the firm leading a lawsuit over health privacy breaches in the territory. Lawyer Steven Cooper says breaches like the one affecting Kudlak likely fit under the type of complaints covered by the representative action. A representative action is similar to a class-action lawsuit. The firm is creating a database of different types of complaints for its lawsuit which is awaiting certification. Cooper Regel filed its statement of claim on Sept. 3, 2019, but hasn't heard back from the territorial government. Cooper says the lawsuit will seek significant punitive damages because the system is "so malformed and ill-considered in its design that it will continue to do what it is doing now." As the representative action begins, Cooper says he expects the known breaches are the "proverbial tip of the iceberg." "I will be pleasantly surprised, as a former N.W.T. resident and lawyer, if there's not more below the surface," he said. Misdirected faxes every week In a report tabled Dec. 11, 2019 in the legislative assembly, N.W.T. privacy commissioner Elaine Keenan Bengts said the government continues to ignore her plea to stop faxing private health information. "It's a problem throughout Canada in that, for some reason, medical practitioners insist on continuing to use fax machines to communicate personal health information. "We continue to receive breach notifications which involve misdirected faxes on a weekly basis." In some northern communities where Internet bandwidth is an issue, faxing is still commonly used. Keenan Bengts says she doesn't want to cast health practitioners as being indifferent to privacy. "The medical services sector is resisting the use of more secure means of communications like encrypted email" and electronic transfer within the medical record system, she said. She says the most common breaches that occur within the health system is when someone mistakenly faxes personal information to the Yellowknife Primary Care Centre instead of Stanton Territorial Hospital. "It's still a breach, right? But it's -- you know -- they pushed the wrong button." [GN] CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Court Rejects US$6.5MM Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cliff White, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that a proposed settlement between a class of commercial food-preparers and Chicken of the Sea, one of the three U.S. canned tuna companies found to have conspired to fix the prices of their products, has been rejected by the judge overhearing the case. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Judge Janis L. Sammartino rejected a payment of USD 6.5 million (EUR 5.9 million), saying it is not clear the settlement provides enough money to those harmed by the price-fixing. "After attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, the settlement would provide at most USD 1.5 million [EUR 1.36 million] for distribution to the CFP [commercial food-preparer] class," Sammartino wrote in a 17 January ruling. "A rough calculation suggests the CFP class members will collectively receive approximately 6.85 percent of the damages they attribute to [Chicken of the Sea]. This seems a modest amount considering that in criminal antitrust proceedings COSI admitted to price-fixing, thus essentially conceding liability in this action for civil damages." Sammartino criticized the fact that the proposed settlement allocates USD 5 million of the settlement amount to attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. "Distribution of a disproportionate part of the settlement to counsel is one of the indicators that class counsel may not have negotiated in the best interest of the class," she wrote. Furthermore, Sammartino criticized terms of the settlement stipulating the CFP class would forgive claims that "may exist in the future" and that the CFP class must settle with the two other defendants -- Bumble Bee and StarKist -- for a less amount. The judge also questioned why the proposal places the settlement funds in a series of short-term investments, "with the class bearing all expenses and risk associated with them." "The court is not inclined to approve a settlement on these terms in the absence of an explanation why the settlement fund should be subject to the risk and expense of investment management," Sammartino wrote. Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee, and StarKist, as well as their parent companies, are in the midst of dealing with a raft of lawsuits that have emerged from claims they participated in a scheme to artificially inflate the prices of canned tuna. Bumble Bee and StarKist both pleaded guilty in related criminal cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, while Chicken of the Sea avoided criminal prosecution, as it served as the whistleblower in the case. However, it is still liable for civil litigation stemming from its behavior. In August 2019, Sammartino approved the separation of litigants into four classes of plaintiffs: claims brought by the direction purchasers bringing their owns suits against the tuna companies, or so called "direct-action plaintiffs" (DAPs); direct purchasers pursuing a collective class action (DPPs); indirect purchasers moving forward as a putative class, or commercial food-preparers (CFPs); and individual consumers proceeding as a joint class, or end-payer plaintiffs (EPPs). [GN] CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Class Action Over Facial Recognition Software ----------------------------------------------------------------- OODA Analyst reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed against Clearview AI, a New York-based startup that has created one of the biggest facial recognition databases in the world. The database was developed by scraping social media networks for people's photos. The startup was originally low-profile but was exposed by the New York Times, revealing how the company was selling access to facial recognition software to law enforcement. The startup previously claimed that it could identify any person based on a single photo, revealing personal information like the target's real name, general location, and other identifying information. The report published by the New York Times was met with outrage among US citizens who had photos collected and added to the database without consent. The company had allegedly collected more than three billion photos when the NYT article was published. [GN] CLEARVIEW: NJ Bans Use of Facial-Recognition App by Police ---------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Connor, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that New Jersey's top law-enforcement officer is banning police from using a facial-recognition app that relies on a database made of billions of photos scraped from social media -- a technique that has raised privacy concerns. State Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said he's also ordered Clearview AI to stop using video from a press conference he gave about a child-molester takedown to promote its product. Clearview has already been hit with a class-action lawsuit from citizens in Illinois outraged that their biometric data was cataloged without their permission. [GN] CONTINENTAL AUTOBAHN: Nofal Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amena Nofal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL AUTOBAHN INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., 5800 COUNTRYSIDE, LLC d/b/a CONTINENTAL MITSUBISHI; and CONTINENTAL AUTOS INC., Case No. 2020CH01777 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 13, 2020), seeks to put a stop to the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. According to the complaint, while there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks and key access systems in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants disregarded their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants have violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not: properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and the Class' fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive a written release from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA. The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Illinois. Continental operates a car dealership business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630.355.7590 Fax: 630.778.0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com CSS INDUSTRIES: Post Wants More Info on IG Design Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSS INDUSTRIES, INC. REBECCA C. MATTHIAS, PHILIP B. BROENNIMAN, STEPHEN P. CRANE, ELAM M. HITCHNER, III, MELISSA LUDWIG, HARRY J. MULLANY, III, CHRISTOPHER J. MUNYAN, WILLIAM RULON-MILLER, DAVID SILVER, IG DESIGN GROUP PLC, IG DESIGN GROUP AMERICAS, INC. and TOM MERGER SUB INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00192-UNA (D. Del., February 10, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, CCS's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan merger with IG Design on January 20, 2020 and pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub offered to purchase all of CSS's outstanding common stock for $9.40 per share in cash. The offer is set to expire on February 28, 2020. Moreover, Defendants filed a Solicitation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction on January 31, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that the Board of Directors violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because the Solicitation Statement contains false and misleading information such that it fails to disclose CSS's projected financial information and there were omitted material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor Guggenheim Securities, LLC. The class will be deprived of their entitlement to make a fully informed decision with respect to the Proposed Transaction if the misrepresentations and omissions are not corrected prior to the expiration of the Merger Sub's offer. CSS is a creative consumer products company focused on the craft, gift, and seasonal categories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302)295-5310 Fax: (302)654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484)324-6800 Fax: (484)631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Urges Court to Reject Class Action Revival -------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Ray, writing for Altoona Mirror, reports that the CSX Transportation Co. is urging a U.S. district judge to reject a request for the reinstatement of a class-action lawsuit by Hyndman residents who were evacuated from their homes following an Aug. 2, 2017, derailment of a freight train. Four residents of Hyndman Borough filed a lawsuit in Bedford County Court of Common Pleas after the derailment resulted in a fire and fumes permeating the air. The lawsuit was transferred by the railroad to the federal court in Johnstown, at which point the residents asked U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson to certify it as a class action, meaning that it could result in payments to the 1,000-plus residents who were forced from their homes. Gibson, however, did not reach a decision whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action because on Dec. 9, 2019, he dismissed the legal action, finding in favor of the railroad. He found that Pennsylvania's "economic loss doctrine" prohibited financial damages in situations where there was no physical injury or property damages. The four plaintiffs complained they suffered from "fear and anxiety" as a result of the incident that kept them away from their homes for many days, but the judge ruled those symptoms have not "physically manifested" since the accident and therefore are not viable under the state's doctrine. Two weeks ago, the residents countered by asking the judge to reinstate the lawsuit because of a late-2018 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that lessened the impact of the doctrine — providing an exception if the plaintiffs could show negligence on the part of the company. The residents' lawsuit contends CSX was negligent in the operation of a 2-mile-long freight train that had faulty brakes and jumped the rail while carrying molten sulfur, propane, asphalt and phosphoric acid residue. The chemicals, according to the lawsuit, fed the fire that spread toxic fumes throughout the area. This week, the railroad filed a legal brief asking Judge Gibson to reject the residents' request to reinstate the lawsuit. Railroad attorneys T.H. Lyda, Esq., of Pittsburgh and Scott L. Winkleman, Esq., of Washington, D.C., argued that the "recent case" cited by the residents, Dittman v. UPMC, "is hardly a new case" and that it cannot be raised now for the first time. The attorneys for CSX also take issue with the plaintiffs' argument that the railroad owed a "common law duty" to protect the residents from harm. And it opposes the residents' complaint, filed by their attorney, Bryan S. Neiderhiser of Indiana, that they have not had a chance to present the physical and mental damage that resulted as a result of the accident. The Dittman case involved a situation in which the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center suffered a data breach, releasing personal information of 62,000 employees. The state Superior Court upheld dismissal of the lawsuit contending the economic loss doctrine barred a class action lawsuit by UPMC employees, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed that ruling that the hospital owed a duty to employees to protect their personal information. The railroad maintains in its legal brief that the residents of Hyndman cannot raise the Dittman case this late in the process, stating, "This is the quintessential second bite and is not permissible at this stage." The company also contends "Dittman does not rework state law, much less address the circumstances of this case." CSX finally claims that up to this point, the plaintiffs have not claimed there was personal injury or property damage as a result of the derailment. "They had every opportunity to provide evidence of any physical injury and property damages in this case. All that was provided were claims of fears and anxiety. This court rightfully concluded the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine," according to the CSX answer. No date has been set for legal argument in the case. [GN] CV SCIENCES: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of CV Sciences, Inc. (Other OTC: CVSI) ("CV Sciences" or the "Company") against certain of its officers and directors. In 2018, a Securities Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of those who purchased securities of CV Sciences, between June 19, 2017 through August 20, 2018. Recently, the class action lawsuit survived the Defendants' attempts to have the case dismissed. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) CV Sciences received a non-final rejection from the U.S. Patent Trademark Office ("USPTO") on April 27, 2017, regarding its principal pharmaceutical product, CVSI-007; (2) CV Sciences received a final rejection from the USPTO on December 14, 2017, regarding CVSI-007; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about CV Sciences' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you have held CV Sciences continuously since at least June 19, 2017, you may have standing to hold CV Sciences harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] D&M CARRIERS: Bromlow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Bromlow and Johnny Walters, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. D&M Carriers, LLC dba Freymiller, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-00062-JED-FHM (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages and other relief arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and California's Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9. D&M had a policy of willfully and unlawfully paying the Plaintiffs a mileage rate only, without separate compensation for non-driving work activities, thereby, failing to pay them the minimum wage for all hours worked, in violation of state law, says the complaint. The Defendant also required that the Plaintiffs stay with their truck while it was being loaded, but did not pay the Plaintiffs or Class members for this work time unless the loading lasted more than two hours, and then the Defendants only paid for any time beyond two hours. The Plaintiffs worked as truck drivers for the Defendants. Freymiller is in the business of transporting temperature-controlled freight across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Reena I. Desai, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-256-3200 Facsimile: 612-338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com rdesai@nka.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Residents ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSHUA AKEEM, et al. v. DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:19-cv-13650-BWA-DMD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to certify a class consisting of: "Louisiana residents who are current and former residents and/or maintenance workers of the Hidden Lakes and Laguna Run Apartment Complex located at 7001 Martin Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana 70126, who have suffered damages as a result of the negligent ownership, operation and management of the apartment complex, including but not limited to, bodily injuries, emotional distress, loss of use and enjoyment, and economic losses." The Plaintiffs seek damages resulting from the negligent ownership and management of the former and current owners and former and current property managers of an apartment complex located at 7001 Martin Drive in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Plaintiffs allege that the tortious conduct of the Defendants has caused the conditions of the property to deteriorate such that the property poses an unreasonable risk of harm to the residents. Dasmen Residential is a privately held real estate investment firm that owns and operates multi-family properties in major cities throughout the US.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Suzette P. Bagneris, Esq. Emile A. Bagneris, III, Esq. THE BAGNERIS FIRM, LLC 2714 Canal Street, Suite 403 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 810-3995 E-mail: sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com - and - Walter J. Leger, Jr., Esq. Matthew S. Landry, Esq. LEGER & SHAW 935 Gravier Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 588-9043 Facsimile: (504) 588-9980 E-mail: wleger@legershaw.com mlandry@legershaw.com DELTA AIR: Kickbacks Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Florida federal judge said on Jan. 24 that a suit accusing Delta Air Lines Inc. of accepting kickbacks for selling trip insurance to ticket buyers was "effectively unworkable" as a class action because calculating damages would require individualized review of each plaintiff's situation. [GN] DELTA AIR: L.A. Homeowners File Class Action Over Jet Fuel Dump --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that a Los Angeles County couple is seeking class-action status for a lawsuit that accuses Delta Air Lines of negligence, nuisance and trespass for dumping jet fuel over a 15-mile flight path before an emergency landing at Los Angeles International Airport on Jan. 14. In a complaint filed on Jan. 24 by the X-Law Group in federal court in Los Angeles, homeowners Frankie Lomas and Roxanda Yancor allege that Delta acted in a "despicable" manner by releasing fuel over densely populated areas at low altitudes, in violation of Federal Aviation Administration standards. [GN] DOWNHOLE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Esquivel Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DOWNHOLE TECHNOLOGY LLC; NATIONAL BOSS HOG ENERGY SERVICES LLC; and THE WELLBOSS COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00038 (W.D. Tex., February 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated well site performance technicians, time and one-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week, thereby violating FLSA and NMMWA. Downhole Technology LLC is a Texas-based limited liability company corporation that designs, manufactures, and deploys frac plugs. National Boss Hog Energy Services LLC is a limited liability company that merged with Downhole Technology in 2013. The Wellboss Company LLC is a corporation doing business in Texas that designs and manufactures well completion technologies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE of CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com EARTHMED LLC: Mair Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Jodi Mair, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted v. EarthMed LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-08107 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying the case as a collective and allowing an opt-in period of 90 days, beginning from the date of mailing/posting and other means of communications; 2. directing the Defendants to produce the full names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last date(s) of all potential Collective members, and the last known work and home physical and email addresses and phone numbers of employees who worked for Defendant from Dec. 11, 2016 to the present, no later than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order; 4. approving a notice; and 5. approving transmittal of the notice to members of the class via US Mail, Posted Message at Defendants’ work sites email, and text message. The complaint hits the Defendant EarthMed's policy of not paying overtime wages for overtime hours of work to its hourly employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. EarthMed is a cannabis dispensary located in the Addison, Illinois area.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff, Collective and Class are: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: 630 464-9675 Facsimile: 630-206-0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com EOS IT: Herrera et al. Seek OT Pay, Breaks for Field Engineers -------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS HERRERA, JUAN GONZALEZ RUIZ, and ANDY HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EOS IT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and EOS UNIFIED SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01093 (N.D. Cal., February 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for violating several requirements, including failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, and failing to providing wages upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are current and former field engineers and all employees performing substantially similar duties for Defendants who were classified as exempt from overtime for at least one week during the three-year period before the filing of the Complaint. EOS IT Management Solutions, Inc. is an information technology services company that provides IT installation services and troubleshoot services for several companies in the U.S. It is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters in Santa Clara, California. EOS Unified Solutions, Inc. is a freight shipping and trucking company with its principal place of business and headquarters in Santa Clara, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: (713) 999 5228 Facsimile: (713) 999 1187 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Don Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftriallawfirm.com EXELON CORP: Texas Court to Hear Claims vs Work Management ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GREGORY SELLERS, et al. v. EXELON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07179 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order on Feb. 12, 2020: 1. severing and transferring Gregory Sellers' claims against Work Management, Inc. to the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to be coordinated and consolidated in the action currently captioned Kristina Compton v. Work Management, Inc., Case No. 4::19-cv-04789 (S.D. Tex.); 2. directing Clerk of Court to transfer this portion of the file to the Houston Division of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; and 3. dismissing with prejudice Gregory Sellers' claims against Exelon Corporation; each Party shall bear its own fees and costs with respect to these claims. The Court said, "Dismissal of Gregory Sellers' claims against Exelon Corporation shall not impact either (1) his claims against WMI being transferred to the Southern District of Texas, or (2) the remaining Plaintiffs', Alan Crary and Paul Troia, claims against Defendants Exelon Corporation, Bucher & Christian Consulting, Inc., or Maxeta Technologies, Inc. The remaining Plaintiffs, Alan Crary and Paul Troia, shall amend their complaint." Exelon is an American Fortune 100 energy company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It generates revenues of $33.5 billion and employs 33,400 people.[CC] EXPRESS COURIER: Ryte FLSA Suit Moved from Georgia to S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as AMANDA RYTE and SEAN SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., and EMP LSO HOLDING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00186 (Filed Jan. 12, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Jan. 22, 2020. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00238 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. The Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs minimum and overtime wages, as required by law. Each Plaintiff performed courier services for the Defendant within the State of Georgia. Express Courier provides courier services. The Company offers delivery of individually addressed letters, parcels, and packages, as well as logistic and warehousing services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Lee West, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC 650 S Shackleford Rd., Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Brandon Alexander Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. THOMAS 1 Glenlake Pkwy., Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 The Defendant is represented by: Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. Andrew J Butcher, Esq. Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. Emily A Quillen, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN ET AL 3214 W McGraw St., Suite 301F Seattle, WA 98199 Telephone: (206) 288-6192 E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com candrewscavage@scopelitis.com equillen@scopelitis.com - and - Abby C. Grozine, Esq. CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP - ATL 191 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 3600 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 522-8220 Facsimile: (404) 523-2345 - and - David Frank Root, Esq. COPELAND, STAIR, KINGMA & LOVELL, LLP 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3600 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 552-8220 FACEBOOK INC: High Court Refuses to Review BIPA Ruling in Patel --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Bunnell, Esq. -- sbunnell@omm.com -- Lisa Monaco, Esq. -- lmonaco@omm.com -- and John Dermody, Esq. -- jdermody@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on Jan. 21, the Supreme Court declined Facebook's request to review a Ninth Circuit decision that a violation of Illinois's biometric privacy statute alone was sufficient to establish standing for Facebook users to bring suit against the company. As a result, the potential billion-dollar trial will move forward, and the wave of lawsuits under Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is likely to continue. Companies operating in Illinois or acquiring biometric information from Illinois residents, including companies developing facial models from photographs of Illinois residents, should carefully evaluate their data collection, use, and retention policies and practices in light of the heightened litigation risk environment. BIPA, which went into effect in 2008, has become the epicenter of biometric privacy litigation since the Illinois Supreme Court decided in January 2019 that a statutory violation was sufficient to trigger standing under the law, even if a plaintiff could not show actual harm such as identity theft. BIPA requires companies that collect or obtain biometric information (facial scans, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.): to inform individuals that their information is being collected; articulate the purpose for which it is being collected; articulate the length of time that biometric information will be collected, used, and stored; develop a written, publically available retention policy; and acquire written consent from the individual before collecting biometric information or sharing biometric information with third parties. BIPA provides for a private right of action and allows damages of $1,000 for each "negligent" violation and $5,000 for each "intentional" or "reckless" violation. In Facebook, Inc. v. Patel, plaintiffs brought a class action alleging, amongst other things, that Facebook applied facial recognition technology to develop facial templates based on uploaded photos without consent, and thus violated BIPA's restrictions on biometric information collection, storage, and use. A central issue in the case is whether the allegation that Facebook violated BIPA is, in and of itself, sufficient to establish a concrete injury-in-fact for the purposes of standing. The Ninth Circuit held that although a violation of a statutory right is not sufficient in and of itself to establish injury-in-fact, BIPA is intended to protect an individual's "concrete privacy interests", and the alleged violations actually harm or pose a material risk of harming those privacy interests. In short, a plaintiff can establish Article III standing by merely alleging a statutory violation of BIPA. The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Patel is in tension with the Second Circuit's holding in Santana v. Take -- Two Interactive Software, Inc.—a case with facts similar to those in Patel -- that a statutory violation of BIPA alone was insufficient to establish Article III standing. District courts evaluating BIPA claims in other circuits have aligned with the approach of the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court's decision allows the circuit split to develop further and leaves the door open for Patel's more lenient standing requirement to be applied in other privacy disputes. In the meantime, companies collecting, using, and storing biometric information will face increased risk of BIPA lawsuits, which may be both complex and costly. The contours of BIPA's extraterritorial application remains a nuanced and fact-dependent issue, and while the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's certification of a class in Patel, it acknowledged that it may be appropriate to decertify the class "if circumstances lead to the conclusion that extraterritoriality must be evaluated on an individual basis." To ensure they are well positioned to defend against potential BIPA lawsuits, companies utilizing biometric information should develop BIPA-compliant policies and conform their practices to meet BIPA's requirements. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie L. Goutos, Esq. -- Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- Abraham N. Saiger, Esq. -- Abraham.Saiger@jacksonlewis.com -- Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq., Eric R. Magnus, Esq., and David R. Golder, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C, in an article for The National Law Review, report that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a case of first impression, has developed a required framework for a district court to evaluate when a plaintiff asks the Court to authorize notice to putative class members who have entered into arbitration agreements with their employer. The Seventh Circuit held that notice of a collective action may be sent to putative class members who entered into arbitration agreements with class action waivers, unless (1) no plaintiff contests the existence or validly of the alleged arbitration agreements, or, if contested by plaintiffs (2) the defendant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, after the court allows discovery on the alleged agreements' existence and validity, that a valid arbitration agreement exists for each employee it seeks to exclude from receiving notice. The plaintiff, Susie Bigger, brought action against Facebook on behalf of herself and others "similarly situated" for violation of the FLSA overtime-pay requirements. Bigger asked the Court to authorize notice to the class of people she alleged were similarly situated. Facebook objected to the notice arguing in part that many of the proposed notice recipients had entered arbitration agreements precluding them from joining the action and therefore those individuals were not "similarly situated" and that the notice would be misleading as they would not be eligible to join the action. The district court authorized notice of the collective action to the entire group of employees the plaintiff proposed and Facebook appealed to the Seventh Circuit In a decision entered on January 24, 2020, the Seventh Circuit created an entirely new framework that it will require all district courts within its circuit to utilize when a plaintiff seeks to send notice to individuals who entered into arbitration agreements with class action waivers. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's facilitation of notice for abuse of discretion. The question faced by the Court of Appeals was whether a court may authorize notice to individuals who, according to the defendant, entered valid arbitration agreements waiving their right to join the action. While this issue was considered in February 2019 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2019), this is an issue of first impression for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit noted that while the twin goals of collective actions are enforcement and efficiency, they also recognized that collective actions present real dangers. Citing to the seminal Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 174 (1989) decision, the Seventh Circuit recognized the potential for abuse of the collective-action device and emphasized that courts "must be scrupulous to respect judicial neutrality" when monitoring the preparation and distribution of notice. The Seventh Circuit then differentiated the case at bar from the Fifth Circuit's case, In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., on the grounds that the plaintiff here did not yield to Facebook's assertions about the existence and validity of the alleged arbitration agreements as the plaintiff had in the Fifth Circuit. The Seventh Circuit created a new test for district courts to utilize in these circumstances and concluded that a court: (1) may not authorize notice to individuals whom the court has been shown entered mutual arbitration agreements waiving their right to join the action; and (2) must give the defendant an opportunity to make that showing. When a defendant opposes the issuance of notice by asserting that some or all of the proposed notice recipients entered mutual arbitration agreements containing class action waivers, the trial court must first determine "whether a plaintiff contests the defendant's assertions about the existence of valid arbitration agreements entered by proposed notice recipients." If no plaintiff contests those assertions, then the court may not authorize notice to the employees whom the defendant alleges entered valid arbitration agreements. However, if a plaintiff contests the defendant's assertions, then -- before authorizing notice -- the trial court must permit the parties to submit additional evidence of the agreements' existence and validity. This may require that the parties engage in discovery on the issue of the existence and enforcement of the agreements. Ultimately, the employer carries the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement with each employee it seeks to exclude from receiving notice. This framework could ultimately prove to be burdensome and costly for employers who implemented arbitration programs. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's order issuing notice and remanded for the lower court to apply the new standard. We will be watching closely to evaluate how the district court in this case and other cases applies the Seventh Circuit's new framework. [GN] FLORIDA: Agriculture Dept. Seeks to Overturn Citrus Case Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- NewsServiceofFlorida reports that Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried's department says it wants to pay millions of dollars to Lee County homeowners whose healthy citrus trees were cut down as the state tried to thwart citrus-canker disease. But first, the Legislature has to fork over the money. That was a key argument on Jan. 24 by attorneys for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as they asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a decision that ordered the department to compensate the homeowners. In a 75-page brief, the department said it doesn't have the legal power to pay the homeowners without lawmakers including the money in the state budget -- as they did in 2018 for property owners in two other counties. "The department wishes to pay the judgments, but, lacking an appropriation, has no lawful way to do so," the brief said. "If the Legislature appropriates funds to pay the judgments, the department will quickly pay the judgments, as it has done in two related lawsuits in Broward County and Palm Beach County." The brief is the latest move in a nearly two decades of litigation about whether the state should compensate residents for destroying healthy citrus trees. Fried's department went to the Supreme Court in December after the 2nd District Court of Appeal ordered the state to pay more than $13.6 million to the Lee County homeowners. A panel of the appeals court in November rejected the department's contention that it could not pay the homeowners because the Legislature had not approved the money. It said that sections of state law cited by the department were unconstitutional "as applied" to the case. The appeals court reached that conclusion because of part of the Florida Constitution that bars the government from taking property without paying full compensation. In doing so, the appeals court upheld a ruling by a Lee County circuit judge. "(As) noted by the Lee homeowners, the underlying principle behind the Takings Clause (of the Constitution) is that the government is not immune from the obligation to pay full compensation when it takes and destroys private property. . . (The) department takes the position that it will make no payment of the final judgments absent specific legislative appropriation; that it has no obligation to take any action to secure such an appropriation; and that it is up to the Legislature to decide whether to make an appropriation. We agree with the trial court that these statutes, as applied here, are contrary to the Takings Clause," the appeals court ruled. But in the brief on Jan. 24, the department cited a 2017 decision by then-Gov. Rick Scott to veto money that would have gone to Lee County homeowners and decisions by lawmakers in 2018 and 2019 to leave the money out of the state budget. Fried's attorneys said she is seeking money again during the current legislative session to make the payments. The class-action lawsuit was filed against the department in 2003 for taking 33,957 healthy citrus trees on 11,811 residential properties, according to the appeals-court decision. The trees were cut down as the department tried to combat citrus canker, which can cause major damage and spread rapidly. In 2014, after a jury trial, the Lee County homeowners were awarded $13.625 million plus interest, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Lawmakers in 2017 approved spending $37.4 million to compensate the Lee County homeowners and Broward County property owners who had filed a similar lawsuit. But Scott vetoed the money, citing "ongoing litigation" as the reason. That led the Lee County homeowners to go back to circuit court, where Judge Keith Kyle ruled based on the Constitution's Takings Clause and directed the state to make the payments. The brief filed on Jan. 24 said lawmakers agreed in 2018 to spend $52 million to resolve the Broward and Palm Beach cases but did not include Lee County. The brief indicated Fried is seeking a total of $61 million this year for the Lee County case and to pay similar judgments in Orange County. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Settles Fiesta/Focus Transmission Class Action for $30M ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Ford will pay at least $30 million in a proposed settlement over a class-action lawsuit related to failing transmissions in its Fiesta and Focus vehicles. The lawsuit represents nearly 2 million owners and former owners of the cars, which had bad dual-clutch transmissions, the Detroit Free Press reported, citing court documents. In addition to the $30 million in cash reimbursement, there will be an easier process for people to get compensated and a simplified buyback program for defective vehicles, the report said. Ford spokesman T.R. Reid said the company believes the settlement is "fair and reasonable" and expects it to be approved during a final hearing on Feb. 28. The case was filed in 2012. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Tershakovec et al. Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GEORGE TERSHAKOVEC, DIANA TERSHAKOVEC, JOHN AUBREY, BYRON HARPER, RICHARD KOWALCHIK, ERNESTO LARIOS, SHAUNTI YANIK-LARIOS, JACQUES RIMOKH, MARK HOCHSPRUNG, FRANK PORTER, GREG ROBERTS, WAYNE LINN, STEPHEN KELLY, JILL KELLY, JOSH LONG, JOSE CRUZ, ATTILA GONDAN, HERBERT ALLEY, ERIC KAMPERMAN, TRAVIS MCRAE, TODD NEWTON, and ERIC EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-21087-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their motion for class certification defined under three alternatives to be chosen by the Court in the exercise of its wide discretion under Rule 23: First Alternative: Individual State Classes California Class: "all persons in the State of California who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed California Class Representatives are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, and Shaunti Yanik-Larios.; Florida Class: "all persons in the State of Florida who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Florida Class Representatives are John Aubrey, Byron Harper, George and Diana Tershakovec, and Richard Kowalchik.; Illinois Class: "all persons in the State of Illinois who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Illinois Class Representatives are Mark Hochsprung and Frank Porter.; Missouri Class: "all persons in the State of Missouri who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Missouri Class Representative is Greg Roberts.; New Jersey Class: "all persons in the State of New Jersey who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed New Jersey Class Representative is Wayne Linn.; New York Class: "all persons in the State of New York who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed New York Class Representatives are Stephen and Jill Kelly.; Oregon Class: "all persons in the State of Oregon who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Oregon Class Representative is Josh Long.; Pennsylvania Class: "all persons in the State of Pennsylvania who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Pennsylvania Class Representative is Jose Cruz.; Tennessee Class: "all persons in the State of Tennessee who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Tennessee Class Representative is Attila Gondan.; Texas Class: "all persons in the State of Texas who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Texas Class Representatives are Herbert Alley, Eric Kamperman, Travis McRae, and Todd Newton.; and Washington Class: "all persons in the State of Washington who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Washington Class Representative is Eric Evans.; Second Alternative: Bellwether State Classes California Class: "all persons in the State of California who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed California Class Representatives are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, and Shaunti Yanik-Larios. Florida Class: "all persons in the State of Florida who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor. The proposed Florida Class Representatives are John Aubrey, Byron Harper, George and Diana Tershakovec, and Richard Kowalchik.; and Missouri Class: "all persons in the State of Missouri who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Missouri Class Representative is Greg Roberts.; and Third Alternative: State-Law Groupings Consumer Protection Classes: The Unfair and Deceptive Conduct Consumer Protection Class: "all persons in the States of California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, Shaunti Yanik-Larios, John Aubrey, Byron Harper, George and Diana Tershakovec, Richard Kowalchik, Mark Hochsprung, Frank Porter, Greg Roberts, Wayne Linn, Stephen and Jill Kelly, Jose Cruz, Attila Gondan, and Eric Evans.; The Omissions Consumer Protection Class: "all persons in the States of Illinois and New Jersey who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Mark Hochsprung, Frank Porter, and Wayne Linn.; The Unconscionable Acts or Practices Consumer Protection Class: "all persons in the States of New Jersey and Texas who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Wayne Linn, Herbert Alley, Eric Kamperman, Travis McRae, and Todd Newton.; Fraudulent Concealment Classes: The Fraudulent Concealment Exclusive or Superior Knowledge Class: "all persons in the States of California, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, Shaunti Yanik-Larios, Mark Hochsprung, Frank Porter, Greg Roberts, Stephen and Jill Kelly, Jose Cruz, Attila Gondan, and Eric Evans.; Reasonable Reliance Subclass: all persons in the State of Washington who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor. The proposed Subclass Representative is Eric Evans.; and Preponderance of the Evidence Subclass: "all persons in the States of California and Tennessee who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Subclass Representatives are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, Shaunti Yanik-Larios, and Attila Gondan. The Fraudulent Concealment Partial Disclosure Class: "all persons in the States of Florida, New Jersey, and Oregon who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are John Aubrey, Byron Harper, George and Diana Tershakovec, Richard Kowalchik, Wayne Linn, and Josh Long.’ Reasonable Reliance Subclass: "all persons in the State of New Jersey who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Subclass Representative is Wayne Linn.; and Preponderance of the Evidence Subclass: "all persons in the State of Florida who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Subclass Representatives are John Aubrey, Byron Harper, George and Diana Tershakovec, and Richard Kowalchik.; and Implied Warranty Class: "all persons in the States of California, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, Shaunti Yanik-Larios, Greg Roberts, Wayne Linn, Jose Cruz, Herbert Alley, Eric Kamperman, Travis McRae, and Todd Newton.; and Unjust Enrichment Classes Unjust Enrichment Class 1: "all persons in the States of California and Illinois who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, Shaunti Yanik-Larios, Mark Hochsprung, and Frank Porter.; Unjust Enrichment Class 2: "all persons in the States of Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are John Aubrey, Byron Harper, George and Diana Tershakovec, Richard Kowalchik, Josh Long, Jose Cruz, Attila Gondan, and Eric Evans.; Unjust Enrichment Class 3: "all persons in the States of New Jersey and New York who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Wayne Linn and Stephen and Jill Kelly.; and Unjust Enrichment Class 4: "all persons in the States of Missouri and Texas who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor." The proposed Class Representatives are Greg Roberts, Herbert Alley, Eric Kamperman, Travis McRae, and Todd Newton. For each above definition, "Class Vehicle" refers to a Ford 2016 Shelby Mustang with a Base or Technology Package. The Plaintiffs also move to be appointed representatives of the Classes, and to appoint the following firms as Class Counsel: Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen, P.A. and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The Plaintiffs contend that each 2016 Shelby Mustang GT350 Base Model and Technology Package vehicles is defective because it overheats prematurely and cannot be driven at sustained high speeds on a racetrack or on public roadways. They alleges that Ford knew this before the Class Vehicles were sold, yet failed to disclose this highly material fact and, instead, marketed the vehicles as "track capable." Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq. Rachel Furst, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (888) 296-1681 Facsimile: (305) 285-1668 E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com rwf@grossmanroth.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com catherineg@hbsslaw.com GERON CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 23 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming March 23, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Geron Corporation ("Geron" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GERN) investors who purchased common stock March 19, 2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On March 27, 2018, STAT published a report revealing that the Company's recent stock performance was due to "flimsy" claims in connection to the efficacy of imetelstat, Geron's experimental myelofibrosis treatment. STAT stated that the available data for imetelstat undercuts Geron's representations as to the drug's efficacy. On this news, Geron's share price fell $1.75, or over 29%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $4.23 per share on March 27, 2018, thereby injuring investors. Then, on September 27, 2018, Geron disclosed its Phase 2 study results for imetelstat failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoints. On this news, Geron's share price fell $3.92, or over 62%, to close at $2.31 per share on September 27, 2018, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had misled investors about the clinical study results for imetelstat; and (2) 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 Geron common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 23, 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/20200131005088/en/ Contact: Charles Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Los Angeles Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com [GN] GERON CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Alerts Investors to Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Geron Corporation ("Geron" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GERN), and the Company's President and CEO, related to alleged violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Geron securities between March 19, 2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Geron is a biopharmaceutical company. During the relevant time period, Geron's sole product candidate was imetelstat, a drug intended to treat certain cancers that occur in bone marrow. The IMbark study was designed to ascertain whether imetelstat helped patients with a cancer called myelofibrosis. Geron was developing imetelstat in partnership with Janssen Biotech, Inc. ("Janssen"), a division of Johnson & Johnson. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants: (1) misled investors about the results of the IMbark clinical drug study of imetelstat; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Geron's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. After making a number of positive statements about imetelstat, the Company issued a press release on September 27, 2018, with disappointing news. The press release indicated that patients in the IMbark study showed only a 10% decrease in spleen volume, when 35% or more was required for success, and a 32% reduction in Total Symptom Score, when at least 50% was needed. The Company also announced that Janssen had terminated its partnership with Geron for the development of imetelstat. On that news, the price of Geron stock fell $3.92 per share, nearly 63%, from $6.23 per share to $2.31 per share on September 27, 2018. What You Can Do If you purchased Geron securities between March 19, 2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The deadline for lead plaintiff motions is March 23, 2020. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200131005497/en/ Contact: Joe Pettigrew, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169-1820 Tel: (844) 818-6982 E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] GOOGLE INC: 9 States Want Judge to Reject Wi-Spy Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg reports that attorneys general from nine states urged a federal judge to toss out Google's US$13 million (S$17.6 million) settlement of a class-action lawsuit blaming its Street View mapping technology for a massive violation of consumer privacy. The proposed accord in a debacle that became known as "Wi-Spy" doesn't offer compensation for millions of people whose confidential data was captured off their Wi-Fi networks by Street View vehicles. Instead, the deal divvies up funds among a handful of privacy rights organizations, a small number of individual consumers who led the case and their lawyers, the state officials said in a court filing. The lawsuit, filed a decade ago, was once called the biggest U.S. wiretap case ever and threatened the internet giant with billions of dollars in damages. The settlement was reached in July and won preliminary approval in October from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, who found it to be "likely fair, reasonable, and adequate." "Without receiving any of the US$13 million cash fund or any meaningful injunctive relief, class members receive no direct benefit from the settlement," the attorneys general said. An attorney for the consumers and Google's press office didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment. Arizona State Attorney General Mark Brnovich submitted the filing, joined by Alabama, Alaska, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana. The states plan to urge Breyer to reject the deal at a Feb. 28 final approval hearing in San Francisco. Google agreed in the settlement to delete all collected data and educate people on how to set up encrypted wireless networks. But the company had already made those promises in a 2013 agreement with 39 attorneys general, according to Mark Brnovich's filing. Any "injunctive relief is illusory," the attorneys general said. The Street View suit is a rare instance in privacy litigation where consumers gained the upper hand, notably when the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco in 2013 rejected Google's argument that it was legal to intercept open Wi-Fi networks because they were akin to AM/FM radio transmissions. The court's conclusion that the federal Wiretap Act applied meant that if Google went to trial to fight the allegations and lost, it could be hit with US$10,000 in damages for every violation. But in July, the plaintiffs' lawyers said the settlement was justified, in part, because there was a risk that they could still lose the case - and end up with nothing. They also argued that the accord would deter privacy violations and that the funds designated for privacy-oriented groups will help teach future information technology workers to "to become safeguards of internet privacy rather than exploiters of personal information communicated over the internet." [GN] GOOGLE INC: Nexus 6P Class Action Settlement Payout Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Deirdre O'Donnell, writing for Notebook Check, reports that the story of the last true Nexus phablet ended in some acrimony as its manufacturing partners, Google and Huawei, were pinged in a class-action lawsuit over dysfunctional devices. This case was settled in 2019 with the agreement that about US$9.75 million was to be paid to the claimants. Given the volume of these subjects, this breaks down to a maximum of $400 per individual, depending on the severity and nature of their 6P's problem. This group has reportedly been sent a notification that these amounts are finally to be paid out. This, according to a relevant Reddit thread, should have taken effect from January 12, 2020. This process is to run for 40 days from that date, or until the end of February 2020. However, none of the posters to this thread, many of whom assert that they are claimants to the settlement in question, have reported the receipt of their payout yet. It should arrive in the form of a check or digital transaction, depending on the preference of the individual beneficiary. [GN] GRAIN PROCESSING: To Make Settlement Payments in a Few Months ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Grubaugh, writing for Muscatine Journal, reports that Muscatinem, Iowa's South End residents might have to wait a little longer to get settlement checks in the Grain Processing Corporation class action lawsuit. Last February, Judge John Telleen approved of a $50 million settlement in the class action pollution case of GPC's corn milling facility. Since 2012, residents who have lived near this plant had complained emissions were a nuisance and severely diminished their quality of life. This ranged from bad odor and thick haze to some residents struggling with asthma and bronchitis because of the plant's emissions. Three years after the class action case was certified, GPC reached a settlement in October 2018. According to this settlement, GPC would pay $45 million to residents and their lawyers, with residents receiving $2,000 to $16,000 per person depending on how close they were to the facility at 1600 Oregon Street and how long they lived there. GPC also agreed to spend $1.5 million on a regenerative thermal oxidizer, which will reduce emissions, as well as create new pollution control projects to also help reduce their odor emissions. In addition, the settlement released GPC of all liability from all known or unknown claims based on air emissions and odor until October 2023. With more than 6,000 settlement claims sent in during 2019, many residents look forward to their settlement payout. But Councilman Kelcey Brackett said the checks still may be a few months away. "There are a number of steps left in the process," Brackett said. "They've now just recently gone through and completed all of the claims that were submitted, and have determined whether they are going to accept or deny claims based on the independent firm that was doing that part of the process." Following this, attorneys representing residents and GPC will be sent this information, with 30 days to review it and decide if they have any disputes over any of that process' results. "That will then go back to the independent firm, and at that point they will then send out notifications to everybody, letting them know if their claim was accepted or rejected," Brackett said. For those claims that are rejected, they will also be given 30 days to appeal. "After that 30 day period is over, then that's when they'll be able to tabulate the claim dollar amounts, and that would be the point where they will calculate the total payouts to each claim and start cutting checks." Because of this, Brackett estimates that it'll be at least a few months before residents see their settlement checks, if not longer. "There were a lot of claims that had to have additional information requested, plus around 6,000 claims total with a lot of them being filed in last minute, and that extended this whole process" Brackett said, "And (the firm) just wants to get everything right." He hopes that the residents who do receive the payout are satisfied with it when they do eventually get it. In addition to the payout, Brackett said GPC will maintain a certain level of air quality control, and if there is any money left over from the lawsuit after the claims have been settled, a fund will be created with the remaining money and managed by members of the lawsuit and GPC, with the purpose of being utilized "to better the community." "The goal of the lawsuit was to improve the environment and air quality in Muscatine and to reduce the burden on residents as far as that part goes, and that is a continuing process," Brackett said, "As far as the dollars that are being paid out to people, the independent firm (Miner, Barnhill and Galland, P.C.) that's managing it is doing everything they can to get it sent out in a timely manner. People do need to be patience, but it is still moving forward." [GN] GRAND CARIBBEAN: Faces Winters TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Winters, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Grand Caribbean Cruises, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00140 (D. Ariz., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In July 2019, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6678, in an attempt to solicit him to purchase its services. The Plaintiff contends that at no time did he ever enter into a business relationship with the Defendant. He adds that he did not provide his current cellular telephone numbers to the Defendant through any medium. Grand Caribbean Cruises offers variety of holiday packages for Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, South Florida, the Bahamas, Las Vegas, or Puerto Vallarta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 800-400-6808 Facsimile: 800-520-5523 E-mail: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com HERITAGE COMPANY: Yasevich Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Reps. --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN YASEVICH, KRISTEN COSTNER, RONALD DENNEY, DANIELLE GROSS, HEATH HATCHER, DESARAY HOLMES, SIERRA NELSON, KA TIE REED, LONNA ROSE, KADI STONECIPHER, JOSHUA STRINGER, and ASHLEY WEST, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE HERITAGE COMPANY, INC., and SANDRA FRANECKE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00019-KGB (E.D. Ark., Jan. 22, 2020), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant employed the Plaintiffs as telemarketing sales representatives. The Heritage Company, Inc. provides fund raising services. The Company offers business-to-business and residential telefundraising services, as well as provides print and mail services, inbound teleservices and donor relationship management, collegiate, hospital, and specialty fundraising services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com IDEAL BUSINESS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT and SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IDEAL BUSINESS FUNDERS LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00583 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2019), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the Defendants' illegal actions. From Feb. 2017 to Feb. 2018, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone ending in -5502 in an effort to sell or solicit its services. At no time did they ever enter into a business relationship with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs assert that they did not provide their cellular telephone number to the Defendants through any medium at any time. The Defendant contacted the Plaintiffs using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, the lawsuit says. Ideal Business provides customized funding solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 W Oxnard St., #780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddlfaw.com INSURANCE CARE: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSURANCE CARE DIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-1033 (N.D. Calif., February 10, 2020) is a class action brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made telephone calls to Plaintiff and other similarly situated on their cellular telephones with the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and an "automatic telephone dialing system" without their prior express written consent. Due to the Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff claims that he and the members of the class have suffered aggravation and nuisance, invasions of privacy, and a loss of value realized for the monies consumers paid to their wireless carriers for the receipt of such phone calls. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and other legal and equitable remedies. ICD is engage in a nationwide telemarketing campaign designed to sell insurance to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMAN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Tel: (212)355-9500 Fax: (212)355-9592 Email: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. Jacob H. Polin, Esq. LEIFF CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: (415)956-1000 Emails: dhutchinson@lchb.com jpolin@lchb.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: 312-283-3814 Fax: 773-496-8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com JONES DAY: Seeks Sanctions Against Sanford, Female Ex-Associates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Jones Day pressed a Washington, D.C., federal court to sanction Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP and six female ex-associates suing the BigLaw powerhouse for sex bias, saying their lawsuit should be tossed for ignoring acts that contradict the women's pay discrimination claims. Jones Day filed a reply brief Jan. 24 supporting its December motion to sanction the former associates by nixing their proposed class action, claiming the plaintiffs and their attorneys used "ostrich tactic(s)". [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Dunn Alleges Discriminatory Employment Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANGELA DUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-00483 (E.D. La., February 11, 2020), arises from the Defendant's discriminatory employment policies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. The complaint alleges that the Defendant enforced a segregated employment policy which failed to provide the Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated African American personal bankers, with equal pay and promotion opportunities as their non-African American co-workers. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a global financial services company, which provides personal banking services throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com - and - Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq. Esha Rajendran, Esq. ELLWANGER LAW LLP 8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 190 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 808-2260 Facsimile: (737) 808-2262 E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law erajendran@equalrights.law KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Sloatman TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- LALA SLOATMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00655 (C.D. Cal., Jan 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In Oct. 2018, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -7696, in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendant's services. The Defendants used automatic telephone dialing system to place their calls, which were not for emergency purposes, says the complaint. Keller Williams Realty Inc. operates in the real estate market. The Company's line of business includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. Keller Williams deals in both the commercial and residential sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com LLR INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Sperring Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Paislie Marchant, Sally Poston and Tabitha Sperring filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Tabitha Sperring, et al. v. LLR, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00433-AB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The nature of suit is stated as other fraud. The appellate case is captioned as Tabitha Sperring, et al. v. LLR, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56295, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellants' optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the Appellees' answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TABITHA SPERRING, PAISLIE MARCHANT and SALLY POSTON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, are represented by: Aaron Lee Arndt, Esq. Justin Potter Karczag, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: 805-962-9495 E-mail: aarndt@foleybezek.com jkarczag@foleybezek.com - and - Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 575 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714-556-1700 E-mail: kgamarnik@foleybezek.com Defendants-Appellees LLR, INC., a Wyoming corporation; LULAROE, LLC, a California limited liability company; LENNON LEASING, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; MARK A. STIDHAM, an individual; and DEANNE BRADY, an individual, are represented by: Steven Graham, Esq. Jing Hua, Esq. Elizabeth Martori Weldon, Esq. SNELL & WILMER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714-427-7002 E-mail: sgraham@swlaw.com jhua@swlaw.com eweldon@swlaw.com LOANDEPOT.COM: Must Face Robocall Class Action, Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports LoanDepot.com LLC failed to shake off a proposed class action alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making robocalls to consumers' cell phones, after the District of Massachusetts found an unconstitutional provision of the law doesn't sink the whole statute. The TCPA makes it illegal to call a cell phone using an automated dialing system except in the case of an emergency, with prior consent, or to collect a debt owed to the U.S. [GN] MATTEL INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Feb. 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Mattel, Inc. ("Mattel" or the "Company") (MAT) of the February 24, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you invested in Mattel stock or options between October 26, 2017 and August 8, 2019 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/MAT. There is no cost or obligation to you. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. CONTACT: FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq. E-mial: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com Tel. No.: (877)247-4292 or (212)983-9330 The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all those who purchased Mattel common stock between October 26, 2017 and August 8, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The case, Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. Mattel, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-10860 was filed on December 24, 2019, and has been assigned to Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Mattel had inadequate systems of internal disclosure and financial controls; (2) Mattel would need to amend its 2018 annual report on Form 10-K to restate the Company's financial results for the third and fourth quarters of 2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 1, 2019, Mattel announced that it would offer $250 million of Senior Notes due 2027 (the "Senior Note Offering"). The Company said that it would use the net proceeds from the sale of the Notes, plus cash on hand, to redeem and retire all of its 4.350% Senior Notes which would be due in 2020 and pay related prepayment premiums and transaction fees and expenses. The closing of the offering was expected to occur on August 8, 2019, subject to customary closing conditions. Then, on August 8, 2019, Mattel announced that its outside auditor had received a whistleblower letter alleging certain improprieties in the company's accounting practices—resulting in the sudden termination of Mattel's scheduled Senior Note Offering. On this news, Mattel's stock fell from a closing price of $13.43 on August 8, 2019 to a closing price of $11.31 on August 9, 2019—a $2.12 or a 15.79% drop. On October 29, 2019, the company reported the results of its investigation into the whistleblower allegations. Among other things, Mattel acknowledged that it had committed certain accounting errors and amended the Company's 2018 Form 10-K to restate the last two quarters of 2017. Mattel also admitted to weaknesses in its internal controls and violations of auditor independence rules. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Mattel's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN] MISSISSIPPI: Underfunding Problems Persist Amid Prison Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Murphy, writing for History News Network, reports that since the last week of 2019, five inmates have been killed at Mississippi prisons. Three of these murders occurred at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, commonly known as Parchman. Adding to these murders, two Parchman inmates escaped from the facility due to crumbling infrastructure and faulty security. With the help of outside sources, inmates managed to smuggle cellphones into the prison and capture footage of backed-up sewage, wet floors, over-populated cells, wafer-thin mattresses were strewn across the floor, and uncontrolled violence. They then texted the photos and videos to Mississippians outside of Parchman. A member of the press asked then-Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant who is responsible for the situation at Parchman. Bryant, a former deputy sheriff, said he blamed the inmates, elaborating "I don't associate victimhood with them," Bryant, a former deputy sheriff, said. As much as Bryant wants to pass off these events on inmates, this is not the first time similar events have occurred at Parchman and within the Mississippi Department of Corrections during his two terms as governor. Furthermore, the Mississippi State Hospital, colloquially known as Whitfield, and the Mississippi Department of Mental Health have also had their share instances of overpopulation and negligence. Conditions at Parchman have been well chronicled by those incarcerated there during the African-American Civil Rights Movement. In 1961, more than 300 Freedom Riders became inmates at the prison. They were arrested by order of Governor Ross Barnett upon entering Jackson, Mississippi on integrated buses challenging the South's refusal to acknowledge the United States Supreme Court's decision deeming segregated public buses unconstitutional. While there, guards placed them among death-row inmates and supplied them with little to no basic provisions. When the riders refused to cease singing protest songs, guards took their bedding and any provisions. During a civil-rights protest at Mississippi Valley State University in 1970, police officers arrested the participants and sent them to Parchman for a long weekend. Protest participant Willie Johnson explained upon release from Parchman, the staff refused to return their belongings, which had been taken upon arrival. "All our property, everything we had on us, we never got back. I had a class ring, a watch, some money, and a necklace." Whitfield has also had its history of issues akin to those in Parchman in recent weeks. Immediately after the Second World War, during Governor Fielding L. Wright's term as governor, appalling conditions and events taking place there came to light due to editorials by Delta Democrat Times's Editor and Owner Hodding Carter, Jr., and State Representative Hayden Campbell's independent investigation of the institution. Much like the Parchman inmates who have used cellphones to captured footage of conditions, James Chaney, a patient at Whitfield in the 1940s wrote and clandestinely smuggled letters to members of the press and politicians. Only Carter acknowledged his detailed letters about the state hospital. Carter would then pass along these letters in his editorials. He wrote about low wages and long hours with the "continuous coming and going of new and strange faces among the attendants and other workers." Simultaneously, Representative Campbell, from an employee's tip, extemporarily visited the hospital on number occasions and saw nothing short of "a snake pit." He witnessed employees stealing from delivery trucks, patients sleeping in the hallways, a "goon squad" that "beat people to death, and a 12-year-old boy in the male disturbed ward being "used morally wrong in every imaginable way." Also learned of doctors sexually harassing female patients, on-the-job drunkenness, and staff members allowing patients to fight one another. In the last decade-plus, the situation for Mississippi's mentally ill and prisoners has deteriorated from bad to worse. From 2009 to 2011, support for mental health care fell by $42 million or 15 percent of the Mississippi Department of Mental Health's total budget.[9] Due to these budget cuts, available beds for patients at the state's state hospitals declined from 1,156 in 2010 to 486 in 2017.[10] The Department of Justice investigated Mississippi's mental health care system in December of 2011, which revealed the veracity of the state's plan for its mentally ill residents. That plan is to continue to institutionalize Mississippians while cutting funding for mental health care. The DOJ found Mississippi had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act "by over-institutionalizing adults with mental illness" and "relying on models that would barely have been considered modern 50 years ago." The department concluded Mississippi proportionately spent more money on institutions and less on community care than any other state in the nation. Ultimately, this reality means more Mississippians with mental illness fall through the cracks and end up homeless, in prison, or dead. This is not the first-time poor conditions and violence in the Mississippi Department of Corrections' prisons have come to light during Bryant's terms as governor. In 2014, Bryant endorsed and signed House Bill 585, a law championed by the political left and right throughout Mississippi that pledged to release non-violent inmates, specifically those serving time for drug charges, in the Mississippi Department of Corrections' system. The legislation pledged some of the money saved due to the reduced inmate population to programs for drug offenders. However, this did not occur. These savings have been used by the state to offset the state government's large corporate tax cuts during Bryant's first term as governor. The following year, inmates at the privately-run East Mississippi Correctional Facility filed a class-action lawsuit against the Mississippi Department of Corrections for inadequate "food, shelter, medical and mental health care, and safety" from fellow inmates and guards. The suit detailed "unreasonable harm from other inmates and from prison staff who routinely use excessive force." Furthermore, the inmates claim guards arranged prison fights and ignored distress signals like fires. As recent as two years ago, the Mississippi Department of Corrections has experienced a rash of deaths due to a lack of healthcare. During the same month then-Governor Phil Bryant touted Mississippi's achievements to President Donald Trump, 16 inmates in prisons across the state died due to the lack of health care, which was an unusual spike in deaths from the prior month.[18] Bryant's administration is not alone in his administration's disregard for those under the supervision of state-run institutions. Mississippi, which has been historically fiscally conservative, has a long history of underfunding, under supporting, and over-utilizing its state-run institutions. According to numerous Mississippi lawmakers, many of the state's budget decisions were made by Governor Phil Bryant, Lieutenant-Governor Tate Reeves, and Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives Philip Gunn, all members of the Republican Party. These recent events at Parchman have a long historical tradition in Mississippi state-run institutions and are linked to underfunding and lack of support by the state government. In a state historically controlled by fiscal conservatives, regardless of party, this continues to be the situation with no end or serious solution in sight. [GN] MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of March 3 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Mohawk Industries, Inc. ("Mohawk" or the "Company") (NYSE:MHK) of the March 3, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you invested in Mohawk stock or options between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/MHK. There is no cost or obligation to you. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. CONTACT: FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq. E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com Tel No: (877)247-4292 or (212)983-9330 The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all those who purchased Mohawk securities between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The case, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. et al,. No. 20-cv-00005 was filed on January 3, 2020 and has been assigned to Judge Eleanor L. Ross. The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the Company's sales growth and demand for its Conventional Flooring Products. Despite the Company's accounts receivable and inventory levels increasing during the Class Period, Defendants assuaged investor concerns by misleading them to believe that those increases were the result of external factors like rising raw material costs and inflation. But in reality, Mohawk was engaging in channel-stuffing to artificially inflate its sales and revenues. Defendants failed to disclose that Mohawk was stuffing its distribution channels with Conventional Flooring Products, which made the Company's sales growth and financial performance appear far better than they were. As a result of these misrepresentations, shares of Mohawk's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Specifically, on July 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company reported disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2018, with earnings that were well below both Wall Street estimates and the Company's previous guidance range. The following morning, in a conference call with analysts and investors, Mohawk also disclosed deteriorating margins which it attributed, in part, to significant production cuts the Company imposed to normalize inventory. Specifically, the Company revealed that it "produced less [Conventional Flooring Products] than [it] sold to reduce inventory." Similarly, Mohawk also revealed that it "reduced [its] production volumes more than [the Company] had thought" and that the Company "came into the year with higher inventories than [it] wanted to have." On this news, Mohawk's stock fell from a closing price of $217.37 per share on July 25, 2018 to $179.31 on July 26, 2018—a $38.06 or 17.51% drop. Then, on October 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company reported sales and earnings for the third quarter of 2018 that substantially missed analysts' estimates and the Company's previous guidance range, with sales growth in all segments lower than estimates. Company executives attributed Mohawk's poor financial results, in part, to further manufacturing reductions that were required during the period to control inventory buildup. On this news, Mohawk's stock fell from a closing price of $151.07 per share on October 25, 2018 to $115.03 on October 26, 2018—a $36.04 or 23.86% drop. On July 25, 2019, after the market closed, Mohawk reported that sales in its Flooring NA segment were down 7% and revealed that the Company was again reducing production to control inventory levels and match its supply with customer demand. The Company also revealed that increased competition and excess inventory had impacted its financial results, particularly in its Global Ceramic segment. The Company announced that "lower demand" for certain Conventional Flooring Products created excess inventory which impacted the Company's sales and margins. The Company further revealed that there was a "big buildup in inventory in ceramic" in the sales channel, which had negatively impacted the Company's sales. Accordingly, the Company provided a weak earnings forecast for the third quarter of 2019, which was well below analysts' estimates. As a result of these disclosures, Mohawk's stock fell from a closing price of $156.36 per share on July 25, 2019 to $128.84 on July 26, 2019—a $27.52 or 17.60% drop. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Mohawk's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN] NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Cedeno in Gulino Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's judgment entered on September 19, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 26, 2019, the Board filed two appeals from the District Court's judgment entered on September 24, 2019, in the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-3539, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Paul Cedeno is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq. INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2400 E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov NOVO NORDISK: Securities-Fraud Suits Win Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in New Jersey on January 31, certified several consolidated securities-fraud lawsuits against Novo Nordisk as a class action and appointed a group of five pension funds to serve as class representatives. U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti appointed the Lehigh County Employees' Retirement System, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and three other pension funds over the objection of the Danish pharmaceutical company, which called them inadequate class representatives. To read the full story on Westlaw Practitioner Insights, click bit.ly/2UaCswd [GN] OPERA LIMITED: Rosen Law Announces Filing of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Opera Limited (NASDAQ: OPRA): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering commenced on or about July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (ii) Opera securities between July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Opera investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Opera class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1755.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents and defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Opera's sustainable growth and market opportunity for its browser applications was significantly overstated; (2) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory lending practices; (3) 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 (4) as a result, the Offering Documents and defendants' statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1755.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] OPERA LTD: Robbins Geller Notifies Investors of March 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Opera Limited (NASDAQ:OPRA) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, including purchasers pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's July 27, 2018 initial public offering (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Brown v. Opera Limited, No. 20-cv-00674, and is assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl. The Opera class action lawsuit charges Opera and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Opera securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Opera class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff can select the law firm of its choice and acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Opera class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Opera class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Opera class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Opera class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than March 24, 2020. Opera provides mobile and personal computer web browser applications. In recent years, Opera has increasingly invested in fintech businesses, providing mobile loan and financing applications which are offered on Google's Play Store marketplace as downloadable applications. On August 9, 2018, Opera completed its initial public offering, issuing 9.6 million ADSs priced at $12 per share, raising approximately $115.2 million in proceeds before underwriting discounts and commissions and other expenses. The complaint alleges that the offering documents for the IPO contained materially misleading statements and were not prepared in accordance with the federal securities laws. Similar misrepresentations were allegedly made throughout the Class Period. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Opera had significantly overstated market opportunities and expected growth trends for its browser applications; (ii) Opera's businesses relied on predatory lending practices; (iii) these facts, 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 Google's Play Store; and (iv) as a result, the defendants' statements violated the federal securities laws. On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report asserting that it had "a 12-month price target of $2.60 on Opera, representing a 70% downside." Among other issues, Hindenburg reported: (i) that Opera's "browser market share is declining rapidly, down ~30% since its IPO"; (ii) that Opera was involved in "predatory short-term loans in Africa and India, deploying deceptive ‘bait and switch' tactics to lure in borrowers and charging egregious interest rates ranging from ~365-876%"; (iii) that Opera's lending business applications were "in black and white violation of numerous Google rules" aimed at "curtail[ing] predatory lending"; and (iv) that consequently, Opera's entire lending business was "at risk of disappearing or being severely curtailed when Google notices" Opera's alleged violation of its rules. On this news, the price of Opera ADSs fell $1.69 per share, or more than 18%, to close at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020. 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. https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200131005070/en/ Contact: Brian Cochran, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel: 800-449-4900 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] OPERA LTD: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Opera Limited (OPRA). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Opera Limited (OPRA) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/opera-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=5393&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 24, 2020 Class Period: (a) Opera American depositary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering commenced on or about July 27, 2018 and/or (b) Opera securities between July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, Allegations against OPRA include that: (i) Opera's sustainable growth and market opportunity for its browser applications was significantly overstated; (ii) 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 Defendants' statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] PEARSON: Faces Class Action Over Inclusive Access Programs ---------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay McKenzie, writing for Insider Higher Ed, reports that inclusive access programs, where students are automatically billed for their course materials, are increasingly big business for leading textbook publishers and college bookstores. But for independent, off-campus bookstores, inclusive access programs could spell a death knell. In a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 23, four companies representing independent bookstores accused publishers including Pearson, Cengage, McGraw-Hill Education and bookstore chains Barnes and Noble Education and Follett of trying to push them out of business. In court documents, the independent bookstores describe inclusive access programs as a "conspiracy" whose "end goal and result is eliminating competitors and raising prices." "The defendants' illegal actions have and will ultimately result in a total monopoly," the suit says. In statements, both Cengage and Pearson said they were aware of the lawsuit and stand by the inclusive access model, which they maintain has increased affordability for students. "This complaint is entirely without merit," said the Cengage statement. McGraw-Hill Education and Barnes and Noble Education declined to comment. This lawsuit is not the first to challenge the inclusive access model. In 2019, Trident Technical College, a public two-year institution in Charleston, S.C., was sued on anticompetitive grounds by the Virginia Pirate Corporation, a company that owns a secondhand textbook store down the street from the college. To automatically bill students for course materials, U.S. Department of Education regulations say colleges must offer these materials below a competitive market rate and must also give students a way to opt out of the program. Trident Tech was accused in the lawsuit of fulfilling neither of these requirements, which the institution denies. Though unrelated, the two lawsuits raise similar issues. Opting out of an inclusive access program is not straightforward for students. "The ‘opt-out' process, when there is one at all, is opaque, confusing and difficult if not impossible to execute," said the plaintiffs in the most recent lawsuit. They add that some students who have asked to opt out of inclusive access programs have been told that there "is no opt-out available" or that they will be de-enrolled from a class if they opt out and seek substitute materials. Kaitlyn Vitez, director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group's Campaign to Make Higher Education Affordable, said students should have multiple options for purchasing course materials, and that inclusive access programs have stifled competition. "The direction that the market is moving, especially with the proposed merger of Cengage and McGraw-Hill, is to dramatically reduce student choice," she said. Nicole Allen, director of open education at SPARC, harbors similar concerns about inclusive access programs. "Publishers are systematically eliminating choice, and this complaint highlights many of the ways this does harm," she said. "We're on the verge of the textbook publishing industry becoming a duopoly, and you have to wonder how much worse it is going to get." [GN] PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: McRae Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- NADIRAH MCRAE, Individually and as Class Representative and RICHARD JEAN as the Parent and Guardian of D.J., Individually and as Class Representative v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:17-cv-04054-PBT (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for entry of an Order: 1. allowing Plaintiff Richard Jean to substitute his younger daughter D.J. as class representative; 2. certifying this litigation as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.CivI.P 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2) on behalf of a class defined as follows: "all past, present and future African-American female student athletes, who participate, seek to participate, or have been deterred or prevented from participating in athletic programs, including but not limited to Field Hockey and Lacrosse, because of the Philadelphia School District's discriminatory actions in the (1) allocation of athletic participation opportunities; (2) allocation of financial resources; and (3) allocation of benefits"; 3. appointing the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the class; and 4. appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g). The School District of Philadelphia includes all public schools in the city of Philadelphia. Established in 1818, it is the 8th largest school district in the nation, by enrollment, serving over 200,000 students.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn A. Ellis, Esq. FREIWALD LAW, P.C. 1500 Walnut St Ste 1810 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215 875-8000s PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Property Owners' Suit Over Pipeline Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ Giana Magnoli, writing for Noozhawk, reports that a group of property owners who have easement contracts with Plains All-American Pipeline is suing the company over its plans to build a replacement pipeline for the ruptured one that caused the Refugio oil spill in 2015. A U.S. District Court judge recently certified the case as a class-action lawsuit, according to Cappello & Noel, the Santa Barbara-based law firm serving as lead counsel for the case. Eight plaintiffs are listed on the original complaint, filed in December 2018, as property owners who signed easement contracts when Plains' predecessor built the pipelines, Line 901 and Line 903, to transport crude oil from southern Santa Barbara County offshore platforms to inland refineries. Line 901 ruptured on May 19, 2015, along the Gaviota coast, spilling 123,228 gallons of crude oil onto the shoreline and into the ocean. That pipeline and its connecting one, Line 903, have been shut down since the oil spill. A jury found Plains guilty of multiple criminal counts for the spill, including failure to maintain the pipeline. Investigators concluded that Plains failed to detect the rupture itself and the external corrosion that caused it. Plains proposes building a new pipeline to replace Lines 901 and 903 and restart crude oil transportation through Santa Barbara County to Kern County refineries, and that project is currently in the environmental review process. The class-action lawsuit will determine whether Plains has to get new easements for the replacement pipeline and whether property owners get "adequate compensation," according to a statement from Cappello & Noël. "Plains installed that one pipeline almost 30 years ago but then failed to maintain it, leading the pipeline to fail catastrophically and Plains to recognize that the Pipeline was beyond repair," the lawsuit complaint alleges. "Plains now claims that its failure to maintain the pipeline gives it the right to install a brand-new pipeline in the easements despite (1) the easements' explicit limitation to one pipeline and (2) that subjecting the Plaintiffs' to the construction required to install the new pipeline would overburden the easements. Plaintiffs bring this suit to protect the property rights to which they are legally entitled and to preclude Plains' from imposing additional burdens on their properties unless and until Plains secures the easements that are adequate to cover the new burden it seeks to impose." Plaintiffs in this case are also represented by attorneys from Keller Rohrback, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. [GN] PLATINUM PLUS: Faces Tompkins TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOMMY TOMPKINS JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PLATINUM PLUS AUTO PROTECTION INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00140 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Tompkins brings this Class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Platinum Plus, in negligently, and/or willfully contacting him for marketing purposes on his cellular telephones, thereby, invading his privacy. At no time did he ever enter into a business relationship with the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts. He adds that he did not provide his current cellular telephone numbers to the Defendant through any medium, and in fact, he had never heard of Platinum Plus prior to Platinum Plus calling him. Platinum Plus provides consumer credit products like extended warranties for vehicles and advertises those products through the use of telephone calls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTLA). 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. PTLA Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portola-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=5389&wire=1 Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTLA) PTLA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2019 - January 9, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 16, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portola-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=5389&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Portola's internal control over financial reporting regarding reserve for product returns was not effective; (2) Portola was shipping longer-dated product with 36-month shelf life; (3) Portola had not established adequate reserve for returns of prior shipments of short-dated product; (4) as a result, Portola was reasonably likely to need to "catch up" on accounting for return reserves; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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] PPG INDUSTRIES: Halley Seeks Initial Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MATTIE HALLEY, and LETICIA MALAVE, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:10-cv-03345-ES-JAD (D.N.J.), the Parties will move the Court on March 16, 2020 for an order: 1. certifying Settlement Class B pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), for settlement purposes only; 2. preliminary approving Class Action Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and PPG; 3. approving the Notices of Proposed Class Action Settlement and order notice of the Settlement to Class Members; 4. appointing German Rubenstein LLP (Steven J. German and Joel M. Rubenstein) as class counsel for Settlement Class B; 5. appointing Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. as Claims Administrator for Settlement Class B; and 6. setting a hearing on the final approval of the Settlement Agreement. PPG is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. German, Esq. Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq. GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP 19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 704-2020 Facsimile: (212) 704-2077 The Defendant is represented by: Joseph F. Lagrotteria, Esq. K&L GATES LLP One Newark Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5285 (973) 848-4111-office E-mail: joseph.lagrotteria@klgates.com - and - Timothy J. Coughlin, Esq. William J. Hubbard, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 127 Public Square 3900 Key Center Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 566-5500 PRS PARTNERS: Faces James Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ SIOBHAN JAMES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRS PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a CAPITAL CABARET, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-134 (M.D.N.C., Feb. 11, 2020) is a class action wherein Plaintiffs seek payment for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, back-pay, restitution, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant took an unlawful adverse employment action against James when she complained about being verbally harassed and physically abused which created a hostile work environment, leading to Plaintiff being placed in a life-threatening situation. PRS Partners, LLC, d/b/a Capital Cabaret, is a limited liability company formed in North Carolina and operates as a gentlemen’s club featuring female exotic dancers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 - and – Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 (ph) PTTEP: Loses Bid to Throw Out Vital Evidence in Oil Spill Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Energy News Bulletin reports that THAI oiler PTTEP has lost an attempt to throw out what could prove to be key evidence in a class action in the Federal Court of Australia. The class action comprised of 15,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers represented by Maurice Blackburn took PTTEP to court in 2016 and then again in early June over the historic Montara oil spill. [GN] QUDIAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Class Action Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in Qudian Inc. ("Qudian" or the "Company") (NYSE: QD) who purchased American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") of Qudian between December 13, 2018 and January 15, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased American Depositary Receipts of Qudian Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information and join the action on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of Qudian Inc., you may, no later than March 23, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Qudian Inc. The filed Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: * regulatory developments in China threatened to negatively impact Qudian's fiscal full year 2019 ("FY19") financial results; * Qudian's business was unprepared to mitigate the risks associated with these regulatory changes; * as a result, Qudian's loan portfolio was plagued by growing delinquency rates; * all of the foregoing made Qudian's repeated assertions concerning its FY19 financial guidance unrealistic; and * as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 16, 2020, Qudian issued a press release announcing "that the Company withdraws its fiscal 2019 guidance and will not issue guidance in the near term due to uncertainty related to the recent regulatory and operating environment." The press release stated that "China's online consumer finance industry was affected by several regulatory developments in the fourth quarter of 2019, including further restrictions on loan collection practices, more stringent user data privacy rules and the requirements for P2P lending platforms to orderly exit their P2P businesses," which had "reduced the availability of funding for consumer credit and driven up delinquency rates across the industry, including the Company's loan portfolio." On this news, Qudian's ADR price fell $0.84 per share, or 19.13%, to close at $3.55 per share on January 16, 2020. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com to join this action. Contact: Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com [GN] RAYMOND JAMES: Sued Over Reverse-Churning in Fee-based Accounts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jed Horowitz, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that an investor has filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Raymond James Financial, accusing it of "reverse-churning" by encouraging buy-and-hold customers to move from commission trading accounts to fee-based advisory accounts without considering the suitability of the recommendations. The firm's desire for a fee-based revenue stream that is more predictable and generally more profitable than commission accounts motivated the recommendations, according to the lawsuit filed on Jan. 24 in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida. It accuses Florida-based Raymond James of negligence in failing to assess suitability of the transfer recommendations, and of breach of its fiduciary once the trading accounts were moved into advisory accounts. Raymond James reported that 52% of client assets, or $444.2 billion, were in fee-based advisory accounts, up from about 40% three years earlier. Spokespeople at the Florida-based company did not respond to a request for comment on the suit. It was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Kimberly Nguyen, a Texas resident who allegedly paid $7,432 in fees from 2016 to 2018, by lawyers that included representatives of Franklin D. Azar & Associates, a plaintiff's firm that two years ago filed a similar reverse churning class-action suit against Edward D. Jones. A California court last July dismissed the Jones suit, and in November dismissed with prejudice a refiled breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim made by the plaintiffs. Lawyers at Azar who worked on the Jones and Raymond James filings did not return calls for comment. Large broker-dealers in general prefer fee-based to commission accounts, the new lawsuit asserts, and Raymond James took advantage of the Department of Labor fiduciary rule that was announced in 2015 to prod brokers to encourage transfers. The fiduciary rule was vacated in June 2018 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but "Raymond James did not then undertake a review of its fee-based accounts to determine whether -- in light of the changed regulatory environment -- any clients should properly be placed back in commission-based accounts," according to the lawsuit. Raymond James last year agreed to a $15 million settlement of class-action litigation alleging unauthorized charges in a fee-based managed account program, but executives said they expect litigation costs to fall during the rest of this fiscal year. The lawsuit filed on Jan. 24 did not estimate the number of potential plaintiffs expected to qualify as members of the class. Raymond James has disclosed in filings that a "significant portion" of its rapidly growing asset-based fees in the past few years came from existing clients, the lawsuit says. It seeks compensatory, statutory, double, treble and punitive damages through a jury trial. [GN] REHRIG PACIFIC: Andrade Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Israel Andrade, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00692, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 13, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01448 to the proceeding. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against the Defendant for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to permit rest breaks; (5) failure to pay wages upon separation of employment; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; and (7) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com RETIREMENT CONCEPTS: Lawyers Preparing Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Lee-Young, writing for Times Colonist, reports that lawyers preparing a class-action lawsuit against Retirement Concepts and others based on alleged mistreatment, neglect and abuse of a resident at a Fraser Valley care home are meeting with families of residents at company facilities on Vancouver Island that have been taken over by health authorities. A civil claim was filed in May 2018 by the children of Blondine Huebner, a deceased former resident of Waverly Seniors Village in Chilliwack, which is owned and operated by Retirement Concepts. It names Retirements Concepts and also PR Seniors Housing Management Ltd., Cedar Tree Investment Canada Inc. and the B.C. Ministry of Health. A notice of application for a class-action suit was filed last month, naming the same defendants. PR Seniors Housing Management is now known as West Coast Seniors Housing Management and operates the retirement and care facilities owned by Retirement Concepts. Anbang Insurance Group, a once high-flying, but now restructured and renamed Beijing-based company, bought Retirement Concepts and its 20 seniors care homes in a $1 billion-plus deal in 2017, using its wholly-owned subsidiary, Vancouver-based Cedar Tree Investment Canada. The deal, which was approved by Ottawa, drew criticism from those who argued patient care could be harmed under a foreign company that revealed little about who actually owned it, which is required by federal investment rules. The law firm said "the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit on behalf of all persons who were residents in care homes owned and operated by Retirement Concepts after November 26, 2002, and on behalf of the spouses, parents and children of these residents." That date is years before Anbang and Cedar Tree bought Retirement Concepts in 2017. "It's reasonable to commence a class action because there's a systemic issue at all the facilities operated by Retirement Concepts," said Rajinder Sahota, Esq., a lawyer with Victoria-based firm Acheson, Sweeney, Foley, Sahota. The firm is working on a schedule for certifying the case, said Sahota. This includes talking to other candidates, but he declined to say who and how many people have been contacted. "The most important issue is there is a vulnerable population that is being served by an industry that is regulated by the province where a lack of proper enforcement of existing regulations and regulation of entities trusted to deliver services at a trusted level failed to do so." Family members of residents who live or lived at Comox Valley Seniors Village and Nanaimo Seniors Village wrote many letters to the Vancouver Island Health Authority before it took over both facilities and also Selkirk Seniors Village in Victoria. Now, some of the family members say they have been meeting with Sahota and other lawyers to find out about providing affidavits for a potential class-action case. "This could take years, but it would be a tool to bring attention to the problem. Filing complaints to licensing officers is not attacking the root problem" of there being too few staff who are being paid too little, said Delores Broten, whose husband lives at Comox Valley Seniors Village. The 2018 notice of claim, which has not been proven in court, said the plaintiff's mother, Huebner, started living at Waverly in February 2017. It alleged staff failed to follow physician's orders for administering medication, ensuring Huebner's dentures were inserted so she could eat properly and regularly, and that, in August, she "sustained serious injuries, [including] a black eye, facial swelling, bruises on her left shoulder and arm, as well as a large tear or laceration on her left forearm." In March, the province filed a response to the civil claim, saying the other defendants "are not owned or controlled by the province." West Coast Seniors Housing Management would not comment.[GN] RUNWAY TOWING: Rosen Law LLC Files Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint was filed by Rosen Law LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against a towing company which the complaint claims has overcharged thousands of consumers who required towing services from a towing company that is the exclusive towing company authorized by the New York City Police Department to tow vehicles on seven (7) highways with a daily vehicle volume of 1.2 million cars per day (Abbey, et.al. v. Runway Towing Corp., et.al., Case No. 19-cv-7116 (FB/SB). According to the Complaint, instead of charging New York's consumers and businesses $125 to have their cars towed up to 10 miles off of the seven (7) New York highways, parkway and expressways, including the BQE, Gowanus Expressway, Prospect Expressway, Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, Staten Island Expressway and 3 other Staten Island highways, Runway Towing Corp was charging up to $400 for the tow that they are only permitted to charge $125 for. The complaint states that thousands of motorists were overcharged between April 1, 2017 and the present date. The amount of overcharges are estimated to be millions of dollars from April 1, 2017 to the present date. It is alleged in the complaint, that numerous insurance companies, including Progressive Insurance Company and Geico Insurance as well as the American Automobile Association have been victims of the overcharges. It is alleged in the complaint that the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs knew that Runway Towing Corp. was overcharging consumers and businesses, but Runway Towing Corp. was permitted to continue their scheme to overcharge. It is alleged in the complaint that Runway Towing Corp. was given a monopoly in towing services since April 1, 2017 by the New York City Police Department, damaging consumers and businesses who transport goods in interstate commerce on New York City roadways. The complaint alleges that Runway Towing Corp. engaged in racketeering activity and is being sued under Civil Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which was used to prosecute organized crime figures. [GN] SIRIUS XM: Settles Robocall Class Action for $32 Million -------------------------------------------------------- Alanna Autler, writing for CBSDFW.COM, reports that it could be the ultimate David and Goliath story: a Collin County man, sick of unwanted phone calls, fought back against a billion-dollar company. Now he's won, and says anyone can do it. Thomas Buchanan was supposed to be home resting on doctor's orders. Instead he was stressing over the telemarketers that kept calling. After days of ringing from dozens of telemarketers and robocalls, he'd had enough. "I said 'this has to stop.' " So Buchanan pulled out his laptop and hatched a plan."I started with a spreadsheet," Buchanan told The Ones For Justice. "And I started logging each of the calls." He was on the federal "do not call" registry, so he knew the companies calling him were violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. He built a database of phone numbers, times and dates then used the information to file a small claims lawsuit against a doors and windows company. Buchanan says the company offered to settle out of court for $3,500. He was preparing more cases against more companies when he realized one case was too big for small claims court. Buchanan had logged 16 unwanted phone calls from Sirius XM satellite radio company. His claim for damages exceeded $50,000, so he searched for a law firm to take on the case. It took him a year to find one that he felt would take the case seriously. Buchanan says his legal team at Hughes Ellzey found records that showed Sirius had made millions of similar calls. "I said 'there are enough families in enough homes getting these phone calls that this needs to be a nationwide class action lawsuit' . . . and that's how it was filed." That was in March of 2017. Buchanan spent the next two years as the lead plaintiff in a legal fight that grew to include several law firms and about 14 million customers. Last summer, Sirius agreed to settle the suit without admitting wrongdoing. A federal judge in Dallas was expected to sign off on the $32 million agreement on Jan. 28. "Listen -- do you hear this?" asked Buchanan, a sly smile on his face. "That's the sound of silence. My phone is not ringing." While it's much more quiet at the Buchanan home these days, he's now excited when a telemarketer dials his number. "Please call me! Because I will hunt you down, I will track you down, and you will be prosecuted." He's also got a message for everyone on the receiving end of those unwanted calls. "Don't expect the government to do it, don't expect your law enforcement to do it. Take ownership of this. You can prosecute these folks." [GN] SOS SECURITY: Use of Consumer Report Violates FCRA, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ESTHER WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SOS SECURITY, LLC, a Pennsylvania Corporation; SOS SECURITY L.P., a New Jersey Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV362039 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan.22, 2020), alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of California. SOS Security provides security solutions. The Company offers security personnel, patrol and tour specialists, visitor control and badging, parking and traffic surveillance, operational and safety evaluations, crisis response teams, special event guard forces, and building security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com TIP TOP: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIP TOP CAPITAL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00649 (C.D. Cal., Jan 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In November 2017, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083, in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase their services. The Defendants used automatic telephone dialing system to place the calls, which were not for emergency purposes, says the complaint. Tip Top is a finance company that provides merchant cash advances to businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Brake Booster Pump Problems ----------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota brake booster pump class action lawsuit alleges brake booster and brake booster pump assembly problems plague more than 1 million of these models. -- 2010-2015 Toyota Prius -- 2010-2015 Toyota Prius PHV -- 2012-2015 Toyota Prius v -- 2012-2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid -- 2013-2015 Toyota Avalon Hybrid California plaintiff Jason Medeiros purchased a used 2015 Toyota Prius Hatchback that allegedly began experiencing brake booster pump problems within his first 10,000 miles of driving. The plaintiff says he noticed the car continued to travel at previous speeds even when he pressed the brake pedal to slow down when driving over dips, railroad tracks, manhole covers and other bumpy obstacles. According to the plaintiff, he noticed warning lights illuminated when the brake problems occurred, including the master warning light, brake system light and slip indicator light. Medeiro received a letter from Toyota letting him know about possible brake problems, but after a visit to the dealership the plaintiff was allegedly told the vehicle was acting normally. Toyota issued a technical service bulletin (TSB 0130-19) in September 2019 for 2012-2014 Camry Hybrid and 2013-2015 Avalon Hybrid brake booster assembly malfunctions. The TSB says the problem "may be caused by a small internal brake fluid leak in the brake booster assembly with master cylinder." The brake fluid leak will trigger diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) and Toyota covered the cost of repairs under an extended warranty program if certain trouble codes were produced. The class action alleges Toyota evades its vehicle warranty obligations by failing to inform customers about the brake booster pump problems. Then the automaker allegedly refuses to perform free repairs unless the vehicle has registered diagnostic trouble codes related to the brake boosters. Toyota is allegedly fully aware of the brake booster problems not only because of the TSB, but due to customer support program ZJB created on August 9, 2018. The lawsuit says Toyota instructed its dealers to replace the brake booster and brake booster pump assemblies for free, "regardless of age or mileage through November 30, 2019 (for 2010 Prius and Prius HPV vehicles) and through August 31, 2021 (for 2011-2015 Prius and 2012-2015 Prius HPV vehicles), and thereafter until 10 years from the date of first use or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first." However, the offer is good only if "one of four specific Diagnostic Trouble Codes was stored in the vehicle's memory, i.e. the brake system had experienced a malfunction during operation." According to the plaintiff, Toyota is evading its responsibilities by repairing the brake booster problems only when a customer's vehicle experiences problems. Toyota issued customer support program ZKK more than a year later which expanded the brake booster and brake booster pump assembly repairs to 2012-2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid and 2013-2015 Toyota Avalon Hybrid vehicles. The automaker allegedly told dealers to replace the brake system parts only if the vehicle had experienced a malfunction of the brake system as indicated by the presence of one of four diagnostic trouble codes stored in the vehicle's memory. The plaintiffs also complain how vehicle owners could get stuck with paying for testing and repairs. "Please be aware that, if the condition is not covered by this Customer Support Program, you may be responsible for the initial diagnostic fees and any other repairs you may decide to have performed. Any authorized Toyota Dealership can determine if a condition is covered by this Customer Support Program." - Toyota The lawsuit says Toyota should "repair, recall, and/or replace the Class vehicles and to extend the applicable warranties to a reasonable period of time, or, at a minimum, to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with appropriate curative notice regarding the existence and cause of the Defect." The automaker did issue a brake booster pump recall in July 2019, but the lawsuit alleges the recall wasn't nearly large enough. In addition, the federal government received a petition to investigate brake booster pumps in Toyota vehicles, something safety regulators are still considering. The Toyota brake booster pump class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Medeiros, et al., v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo. CarComplaints.com has complaints from drivers of the Toyota Prius, Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid, Toyota Camry Hybrid and Toyota Avalon Hybrid. [GN] TP-LINK USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzales Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Julianne Chuanroong, Richard Gonzales, Jon Hernandez, Darren D. Todd and Matthew Walker filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Richard Gonzales, et al. v. TP-Link USA Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05824-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The nature of suit is stated as other fraud. The appellate case is captioned as Richard Gonzales, et al. v. TP-Link USA Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-17282, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellee TP-Link USA Corporation's answering brief is due on March 18, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD GONZALES, MATTHEW WALKER, JON HERNANDEZ, JULIANNE CHUANROONG, and DARREN D. TODD, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, are represented by: Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq. Seth Adam Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 271-6469 E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com seth@gutridesafier.com Defendant-Appellee TP-LINK USA CORPORATION is represented by: Heather F. Auyang, Esq. Kevin M. Bringuel, Esq. LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1010 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: 650-422-2130 E-mail: heather.auyang@ltlattorneys.com kevin.bringuel@ltlattorneys.com - and - Prashanth Chennakesavan, Esq. David A. Crane, Esq. LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-612-8900 E-mail: prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com david.crane@ltlattorneys.com U.S. GOVERNMENT: Climate Change Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra.com reports that after much legal wrangling since the claim was launched against the U.S. federal government and the Office of the President of the United States in 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently dismissed the youth-led class action in Juliana v. United States. The plaintiffs, ranging in age from 9 to 21, claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights to a "climate system capable of sustaining human life". To redress this specific violation, they sought an order from the court requiring the government to develop a plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2. The Majority Decision: Climate Change a Political Matter The lawsuit was dismissed with the Court finding that the issue of the appropriate response to climate change is a political issue that should be dealt with by the legislative and executive branches of government instead of the courts. The government's key argument was that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their constitutional claims. In order to establish standing--which would put the dispute within the power of a federal court--the plaintiffs needed to establish several elements, including redressability. This element itself has two requirements: that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking is substantially likely to redress their injuries and is within the district court's power to award. Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, writing for the majority, was skeptical that the first requirement of redressability had been met, particularly given the plaintiffs' concession that their requested relief alone would not solve global climate change (although they asserted it might ameliorate their injuries to some extent). The majority highlighted that the plaintiffs' experts made it clear during the proceedings that reducing the global consequences of climate change will take far more than the actions of any single government. The majority also concluded that the second prong of the redressability test was not met, stating, "it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs' requested remedial plan" to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change. He further noted that, "Not every problem posing a threat—even a clear and present danger—to the American Experiment can be solved by federal judges". The majority took the plaintiffs' evidence about the environmental and human damage created by climate change in its most favourable light. Despite this and for the reasons set out in his decision, Judge Hurwitz concluded his reasons by stating, "[W]e reluctantly conclude . . . that the plaintiffs' case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large". The majority relied on the non-justiciability, or political questions doctrine, emphasizing the division of powers in the U.S. between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The Dissent: An Asteroid Barreling Toward Earth Judge Josephine L. Staton dissented, writing that the U.S. government accepts the need for a concerted response to climate change, "yet presses ahead toward calamity". Further noting, "[I]t is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses . . . the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation". Judge Staton stated that in her view, the plaintiffs' claims are justiciable because they seek to enforce the basic principle that the U.S. Constitution, "does not condone the Nation's willful destruction". She wrote that granting the plaintiffs' relief would provide meaningful redress once the injury at issue was properly defined. The injury at issue, according to Judge Staton, is not climate change writ large but climate change beyond the threshold point of no return. With that redefinition, she noted that the significance of every emission reduction is magnified and meets the redressability test. More Climate Change Class Actions on the Way Since the filing of Juliana, numerous youth-led climate change class actions have been launched against governments in the United States, Canada and around the world. In Germany, three lawsuits were filed recently against both Chancellor Angela Merkel's government and the German Parliament by climate change activists. In one case, plaintiffs claim that the country's climate policy to meet its 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient, contravening a constitutional right to human dignity. In New Charter Litigation Seeks Stable Climate System (October 28, 2019), we commented on the La Rose case, where the plaintiffs alleged violations of section 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the government's inaction. In November 2019, seven Ontario residents ranging from 12 to 24 years old launched a constitutional challenge against the provincial government, for what they claim is inaction on climate change. This is the first case against a Canadian province over climate change, although two lawsuits have been filed against the federal government. The focus of the Ontario Application is the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target set by the province in its Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Alves Suit over Spam Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- TERRI ALVES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01368 (C.D. Cal., February 11, 2020) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendant for TCPA violations. The Plaintiff alleges that she received unsolicited text messages via an automatic telephone dialing system from the Defendant without prior express consent in October 2018, thereby violating her rights of privacy. Uber Technologies Inc. is a transportation services provider which conducted business in the State of California and in the County of Los Angeles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com UBER: Can't Force Philadelphia Woman to Settle Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Oona Goodin-Smith, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that when you download Uber's app, you agree that you're older than 18, that you're not using a stolen credit card to pay your driver, and -- if you're like one Philadelphia woman and fracture your spine in a Center City car crash -- that you won't seek a jury trial against the ride-share giant. But, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge has ruled that, because Uber can't prove that Jillian Kemenosh actually read the company's terms and conditions before she signed up or rode in the car that ran a red light, she can't be forced to settle her claims behind closed doors. Sitting in the back seat of an Uber in March 2018, Kemenosh was more than halfway home on a four-mile trip from Columbus Boulevard to her Center City apartment when the driver of the 2010 Toyota Highlander ran a red light at 16th and Vine Streets, crashing into another vehicle. Suffering a fracture to her spine, concussion, and traumatic brain injury, Kemenosh sued Uber, its local subsidiaries, and the driver, requesting a jury to determine her payout. But, Uber argues in court documents, by approving the ride-share's "terms and conditions" when she downloaded the app in 2013, Kemenosh had already forfeited her right to a jury, agreeing instead to resolve any legal disputes only through binding arbitration, which forces users to waive their rights to sue and settle matters privately. Proponents of arbitration say that it's faster and cheaper than court. But critics say it revokes a consumer's right to publicly take action against a company. [GN] UC SAN DIEGO MEDICAL: Suit Seeks Damages for 800 Surgery Patients ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Gotfredson, writing for CBS 8 News, reports that a lawsuit filed in San Diego federal court is seeking damages for some 800 patients who had surgery at UC San Diego Medical Center when one of the hospital's anesthesiologists may have been high on fentanyl. The anesthesiologist -- Dr. Bradley Hay -- already has lost his medical license. He's been criminally convicted of taking fentanyl from the Hillcrest hospital during surgeries. Attorney Eugene Iredale, Esq. said UC San Diego Medical Center should notify all patients who underwent surgery, potentially, when Dr. Hay was on drugs. "The hospital has refused to notify any of those patients. The hospital has apparently refused to repay any of the bills for anesthesia. And, the hospital has not audited or reviewed any of those files," said Iredale. Affected patients would have received surgery between April 2016 and January 2017, according to the attorney. "The doctor acknowledges he was addicted to fentanyl, was stealing fentanyl from the hospital and the patients, was shooting up in hospital bathrooms between three and five times a day," Iredale said. The lawsuit, filed last week in downtown federal court, is seeking class action status. UC San Diego Medical Center does not comment on pending litigation but sent News 8 an email saying Dr. Hay no longer works at the hospital. [GN] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Dickinson Wright Attorneys Discuss Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Russell A. Kolsrud, Esq. -- RKolsrud@dickinson-wright.com -- and Gregory W. Moore, Esq. -- GMoore@dickinsonwright.com -- of Dickinson Wright, in an article for Lexology, report that in 2008, Congress enacted the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act ("Parity Act"). In essence, the Parity Act necessitates that financial requirements and treatment limitations imposed on mental health and substance use disorder benefits cannot be more restrictive than the financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to medical/surgical benefits. Although Congress enacts consequential patient-oriented legislation such as the Parity Act, that does not mean the provisions contained in the Act are enforced by the government. Eight years after the Parity Act became law, Congress enacted the 21st Century Cures Act ("Cures Act"), which was intended to increase implementation of Parity Act. The Cures Act focused on the simple notion that health insurance companies and group health benefit plans must actually disclose to participating beneficiaries and contracting providers that behavioral health and substance abuse services are covered services under the terms of the participant's health plan. The Cures Act constituted congressional recognition that behavioral health and substance abuse treatment benefits were still not on par with medical/surgical benefits nearly 8 years following passage of the Parity Act. Non-quantitative Treatment Limitations A flaw in implementation of Parity Act benefits for health plan beneficiaries was the Act's discretionary authority allowing health insurers and group plans to use non-quantitative treatment limitations to deny coverage on the scope or duration of benefits for treatment of mental health and substance abuse disorders. Non-quantitative treatment limitations are by their nature non-numeric and subjective. Compliance with Parity Act obligations for non-quantitative treatment limitations fundamentally depends on parity in the development of the underlying processes and evidentiary standards used by insurers and health plans to limit coverage for treatment. With this discretionary authority, health insurers and health plans created a myriad of inconsistent, non-transparent standards and classifications of services that, as written or applied, resulted in denial of coverage to beneficiaries based upon faulty medical necessity criteria. There Is a New Sheriff in Town The new sheriff arrived in March 2019. Wit v. United Behavioral Health, U.S. District Court Northern District of California. Wit, a class-action filed May 21, 2014, claimed residential treatment and substance abuse services contained in United's Level of Care Guidelines for Treatment did not meet the accepted standard of care for treatment of mental health and substance abuse disorders. In the 106-page Opinion, the Court also found that United's Coverage Determination Guidelines (Coverage and Benefit Decisions) were premised on standards that were more restrictive than the generally accepted standards of medical care for mental health and substance use disorders. The Court ruled that United's overriding profit motive infected its development of parity for its standards and processes for both its medical necessity guidelines and its coverage determination guidelines prepared by United in 2011. This was accomplished by United's internal financial division, which ensured that through "utilization management," coverage of services would be denied, thereby mitigating the impact of the 2008 Parity Act. Given the result in Wit, on September 12, 2019, a subsequent class action was filed by behavioral health and substance abuse treatment providers against United asking the Court to order United to re-adjudicate all previously denied or reduced claims for behavioral health and substance abuse treatment services for the period of May 22, 2011 through January 31, 2019 for all provider Class members. The estimated denied and underpaid claims is in the tens of billions of dollars. The New Sheriff's method to Implement the Parity Act Is the Class Action The legal mechanism and remedy of class actions is the vehicle to implement the Parity Act. Since the filing of Wit on May 21, 2014, there are more than 20 class action lawsuits challenging the creation, use, and sale of Clinical Coverage Guidelines and Level of Care Guidelines as designated criteria for health insurers and group plans to determine which mental health and substance abuse services are covered benefits or medically necessary for the plans' beneficiaries. These cases, in general, challenge clinical coverage guidelines regarding non-quantitative treatment limitations for a broad range of mental health and substance abuse services. Five class actions allege wrongful denial of various treatments for children with autism. Three actions deal with denial of treatment for persons suffering from Anorexia Nervosa. Several class actions challenge both quantitative and non-quantitative treatment limitations for outpatient as well as residential treatment for mental health and substance abuse disorders. The defendants in these cases include plan administrators, creators of clinical coverage criteria guidelines sold to and used by health plans and health plan administrators, and health insurance companies. Jurisdiction in federal courts is based on ERISA, the Parity Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and similar state law statutory schemes. Prioritizing and funding mental health and substance abuse treatment will, in the long run, decrease medical health care costs in this country. Timely and effective treatment for people suffering from mental illness or substance abuse disorders will reduce emergency department boarding of patients and generate effective continuity of care. However, if the new Sheriff fails to achieve Parity Act compliance, the lack of funding for treatment will not attract mental health and substance abuse disorder providers, thereby resulting in a shortage of approximately 250,000 providers in the fields of substance abuse and mental health treatment by the year 2025. If you are a provider of mental illness or substance abuse disorder services and have experienced payment denials for claim which were in your judgement, medically necessary and consistent with generally accepted standards of medical care for mental health and substance use disorders, we can help. [GN] UNITED STATES: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review of Ruling in ACRL Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Arab American Civil Rights League, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-10310, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. The appellate case is captioned as In re: DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Case No. 19-114, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ARAB AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, on behalf of itself, its members, and its clients; AMERICAN ARAB CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, on behalf of itself and its members; HEND ALSHAWISH; SALIM ALSHAWISH; FAHMI JAHAF; and KALTUM SALEH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nabih H. Ayad, Esq. NABIH H. AYAD & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 645 Griswold Street, Suite 2202 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: 313-983-4600 E-mail: ayadlaw@hotmail.com Plaintiffs-Respondents ARAB AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, on behalf of itself, its members, and its clients; and AMERICAN ARAB CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, on behalf of itself and its members, are represented by: Helal A. Farhat, Esq. SALAMEY AND FARHAT 6053 Chase Road Dearborn, MI 48126 Telephone: 313-945-5100 E-mail: hfarhat@saflegal.com Plaintiffs-Respondents AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN, on behalf of itself and its members; ARAB AMERICAN & CHALDEAN COUNCIL, on behalf of itself and its members; and ARAB AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members, are represented by: Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN 1514 Wealthy Street, S.E., Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Telephone: (616) 301-0930 E-mail: maukerman@aclumich.org Petitioners-Defendants U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; MARK A. MORGAN, Senior Official Performing the Functions and Duties of the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary of State; WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Attorney General of the United States; JOSEPH MAGUIRE, Acting Director of National Intelligence; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are represented by: Joshua Paul Waldman, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-0236 E-mail: joshua.waldman@usdoj.gov URBAN ONE: Faces Class Suit for Unpaid Overtime, Harassment ------------------------------------------------------------ Radio Online reports that two women have filed a class action suit against Urban One, parent of Hip-Hop WHTA-FM (Hot 107.9)/Atlanta, over unpaid overtime, reports AJC.com's Rodney Ho. They also allege sexual harassment by former Radio One/Atlanta VP/Programming "Hurricane" Dave Smith, who is not named in the suit. Smith was let go in August by Urban One after a previous lawsuit was filed by former air personality Shorty Mack, who claimed he sexually assaulted and harassed her. Smith later filed a defamation counterclaim lawsuit. Plaintiff Desiree Lucas joined WHTA in 2012 as a production assistant while Dominique Hinton joined the station as a production assistant and board-op the same year. According to the suit, the job posts were categorized as hourly employment, but when working overtime they did not receive overtime pay of time and a half -- each both worked more than 40 hours a week. The plaintiffs also believed male employees doing the same job were getting paid more than the women. This lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Georgia, also describes alleged behavior by Smith. Both women filed comparable sex discrimination and retaliation suits with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2018.[GN] WALMART INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. WALMART INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00790 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2020), seeks to put an end to the systemic civil rights violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act committed by the Defendant against deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in New York State and across the United States. The Defendant denies deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services that it provides to non-disabled individuals, through http://www.walmart.com/and related domains it owned, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant provides a wide array of goods and services to the public through its Web site. However, the Plaintiff contends, the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to use the Website. In fact, the Plaintiff contends, the access barriers make it impossible for deaf and hard-of-hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on the Web site. The Defendant, thus, excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf individual. The Defendant operates the Web site, which is an online store and informational Web site allowing visitors to search for sport and exercise equipment amongst many other products, learn about how to use the equipment, and make purchases, amongst other features.[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 WESTPAC BANKING: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of investors that purchased Westpac Banking Corporation (NYSE: WBK) securities between November 11, 2015 and November 19, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until March 30, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On November 20, 2019, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre ("AUSTRAC") charged Westpac with over 23 million violations of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (the "AML-CTF Act"). Further, Westpac's senior management failed to distinguish money laundering or risky payments to and from Southeast Asia indicative of child sexual exploitation On this news, Westpac's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or over 4%, to close at $17.15 per share on November 20, 2019. The Complaint, filed on January 30, 2020, alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) contrary to Australian law, the Company failed to report over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to AUSTRAC, Australia's anti money-laundering and terrorism financing regulator; (2) the Company did not appropriately monitor and assess the ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with movement of money into and out of Australia; (3) the Company did not pass on requisite information about the source of funds to other banks in the transfer chain; (4) despite being aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not carry out appropriate due diligence on transactions in South East Asia and the Philippines that had known financial indicators relating to child exploitation risks; (5) the Company's AML/CTF Program was inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money laundering and terrorism financing risks; and (6) 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 Westpac securities during the Class Period, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: 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. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200131005606/en/ Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Tel: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com, fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] WESTPAC BANKING: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Westpac Banking Corporation (NYSE: WBK) on behalf of all purchasers of common stock during the period between November 11, 2015 and November 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 30, 2020. If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. The complaint charges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) contrary to Australian law, the Company failed to report over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to AUSTRAC, Australia's anti money-laundering and terrorism financing regulator; (2) the Company did not appropriately monitor and assess the ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with movement of money into and out of Australia; (3) the Company did not pass on requisite information about the source of funds to other banks in the transfer chain; (4) despite being aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not carry out appropriate due diligence on transactions in South East Asia and the Philippines that had known financial indicators relating to child exploitation risks; (5) the Company's AML/CTF Program was inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money laundering and terrorism financing risks; and (6) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit https://www.johnsonfistel.com. Contact: Jim Baker, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP Tel: 619-814-4471 Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] YEDI INC: Faces Slade ADA Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site --------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. YEDI, INC., Case No. 20-cv-00561 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services it provides to non-disabled customers through its Web site. According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make the Web site accessible to blind persons, the Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York, the lawsuit says. The Defendant owns and operates the Seaport District, a retail shopping and entertainment district located in downtown Manhattan, New York, which is a place of public accommodation. Seaport District provides to the public important and enjoyable goods and services, such as shops, restaurants, and entertainment venues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com YORK RISK: Sumers Labor Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- York Risk Services Group, Inc., removed the case captioned as CHERYL SUMERS, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. PC 20190646 (Dec. 10, 2019), from Superior Court of the State of California, County of El Dorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 22, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-at-00074 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Defendants, including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide required meal periods pursuant to the California Labor Code. York Risk Services provides insurance and loss adjustment services. The Company offers customized claims management, managed care, risk management, pool administration, and other insurance services.[BN] Defendant York Risk Services Group, Inc., is represented by: Robin A. Wofford, Esq. Lois M. Kosch, Esq. Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq. Hang A. Do, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669 E-mail: rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com nroysdon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com [*] TRACED Act Passage May Lead to More TCPA Enforcement Activity ----------------------------------------------------------------- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that on Dec. 30, 2019, President Trump signed the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act into law. As its name implies, the bipartisan TRACED Act targets unwanted and illegal robocalls by requiring carriers to implement a number-authentication system allowing consumers to better identify unwanted robocalls and by stiffening penalties for robocalls. The TRACED Act also contains important modifications to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which governs the use of automatically dialed telephone calls and text messages. The TRACED Act expands the enforcement powers of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relative to the TCPA. Notably, the TRACED Act allows the FCC to pursue civil forfeiture penalties against those who violate the TCPA's restrictions on the use of automatic telephone dialing systems and to tack on an additional $10,000 penalty for those who do so intentionally. The TRACED Act also extends the statute of limitations for FCC civil forfeiture actions against those who violate the TCPA's prohibition on causing caller identification services to transmit misleading or inaccurate data from two to four years. The TRACED Act requires the FCC to report to Congress on its TCPA enforcement activities by the end of 2020. The law further requires the FCC to report to the Department of Justice (DOJ) whenever it finds that repeated robocall violations are being made within an intent to defraud or wrongfully obtain anything of value. This will allow for increased criminal investigations by the DOJ and better cooperation amongst the governmental departments. The TRACED Act also tackles the problem of "one-ring scams," whereby a caller (usually overseas) makes a call and allows the call to ring the called party for a short duration, in order to prompt the called party to return the call, thereby subjecting the original called party to charges. The FCC is directed to issue a proceeding, within four months of the TRACED Act's enactment, to consider how to better protect the public from such scams. In addition to these new enforcement tools, the TRACED Act suggests that additional TCPA-related regulation is in the making. The attorney general, in consultation with the FCC, is directed to convene an interagency working group to study government prosecutions of TCPA violations and to identify constraints to such actions. The working group is required to report to Congress within 270 days of enactment of the TRACED Act. The TRACED Act also gives the FCC one year to reexamine regulatory exemptions to the TCPA and directs the FCC to ensure that all exemptions contain requirements limiting the types of entities who can make and receive exempted calls and the number of exempted calls that can be made to a particular number. The upshot is that businesses should prepare for more TCPA activity—both on the enforcement and the regulatory sides—from the FCC in 2020. Increased regulatory activity will be particularly important to follow, as class action TCPA lawsuits are likely to track new regulations. Companies should make sure that their contracts and methods comply with the TCPA and recommended best practices. [GN] ********* 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 ***