/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200302.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, March 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 44
Headlines
108TH STREET: Moreyra Suit Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
3M CO: 150 Class Suits Filed over Aqueous Film Forming Foam
3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court
3M CO: New York Class Action Over Water Contamination Ongoing
3M CO: Parties in St. John Case Seek to Extend Stay Through April
3M COMPANY: Faces Manuel Suit Over AFFF Products in S. Carolina
ABIOMED INC: Continues to Defend NY Shareholders Class Suits
ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Faces Moultrie FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Court Dismisses Robertson FDCPA Suit
AMERICAN FLAGGING: Eliely Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMERICAN FREEDOM: Illegal Collects Biometric Info, Ramos Claims
AMICA MUTUAL: Gottlieb Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premium
ANDREW WILKIN: Silva Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
ASSET RECOVERY: Osby Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
AT&T CORP: Bid for Equitable Tolling in Calloway FLSA Suit Denied
AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
AXON ENTERPRISES: Only Fraudulent Omission Claim Remains in Richey
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Durkee Class Suit in S.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Time to Submit Claims in GSE Bond Suit Extended
BECTON DICKINSON: 14,330 Hernia Product Claims Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: 2,650 Filter Product Claims Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 750 Women's Health Product Claims
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Securities Suit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits
CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit Underway
CDI CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vasquez Suit Claims
CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Photographs
COBALT COMMERCIAL: Ruiz Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
COLLECTO INC: Oh Sues in New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA
CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Richardson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
CULLIGAN INT'L: Kapp Suit Moved From Illinois to E.D. Wisconsin
DACOTAH BANK: Schultes Sues in North Dakota Over FDCPA Violation
DARTMOUTH CLUBS: Truehart Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
DEVA CONCEPTS: Schwartz Sues Over Defective DevaCurl Products
DEVACURL: Women File Class Action for Hair Fall, Flaky Scalps
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settlement to End Court Oversight of DYRS
DKJJ DELI: Nunez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
DRAEGER'S SUPER: Faces Thompson Suit in California Superior Court
DREAMCLOUD BRAND: Robinson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
DSV AIR & SEA: Suren Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
EF EDUCATION: Sensibaugh Sues Over Automated Marketing Texts
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Thibodeaux Suit Over FCRA Violation
EVENFLO COMPANY: Matthews Files Suit in District of Massachusetts
FACILITIES EXPERTS: Stoneman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lee Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA
G & A RESTAURANT: Whitehurst Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
GERBER LIFE: Prewitt Insurance Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
GILEAD SCIENCES: MSP Antitrust Suit Moved From Florida to Calif.
GLA COLLECTION: Adair Sues in M.D. Alabama Over FDCPA Violation
HABIT RESTAURANTS: Stein Securities Suit Challenges Yum! Merger
HILLSBOROUGH TITLE: Faces Urban Suit Over Illegal Closing Fees
HUDSON HALL: Stewart Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
JOSIE MARAN: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
KELLY SERVICES: Stanley FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
KEMET CORP: Settlement in Capacitors' Suit Awaits Court Approval
L BRANDS: Faces Velazquez FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report
LANNETT CO: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement in Pa. Suit
LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend E.D. Pennsylvania Class Action
LEGACY INSURANCE: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
LOUISIANA: Expropriation Damages Award in Crooks Reversed in Part
MATTEL INC: NOMERS Sues Over Decline in Stock's Market Value
METROPOLITAN PROTECTIVE: Rosario Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Sezanayev Suit Over False Collection Letter
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Minister to Sue Over Super Bowl 54 Halftime Show
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NEW YORK CITY: Class Action Lawsuit Targets Greedy Landlords
NEW YORK CITY: Special Education Complaints Spark Class Action
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Breuer FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
NYCRC LLC: TPBC Sues Over Fraud in GWBBS Development Project
OAK TREE COUNTRY CLUB: Owners Settle Class Action Lawsuit
OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Smith Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to M.D. Florida
OMNI SPECIALTY: Thiry Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to W.D. Missouri
ON GRID INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims
PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Recover Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
PATTERN ENERGY: Arbitrage Fund Challenges Merger With CPPIB
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Sgarlata Class Suit Under Appeal
PETER NYGARD: Class Action Alleges Rape, Sexual Trafficking
PEVATOR COMPANIES: Court Decertifies Class in Radford FLSA Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Komorksi Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PRIMO WATER: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal With Cott Corporation
QUINSTREET INC: Faces Mousa TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
RAPID RESPONSE: Smith Sues in N.D. New York Over TCPA Violation
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Saldana FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
RICHEMONT NORTH: Joye Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
RICOH USA: Sarabia Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
RING LLC: Smart Home Security Devices Are Unsecured, Politi Says
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Summary Judgment Bids in Sullivan Denied
SANMEDICA INT'L: Bid to Change Venue in Pizana False Ad Suit Denied
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Melillo Suit Moved From New York to Florida
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Scholl Suit Moved From Minn. to S.D. Florida
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Chatman Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. Florida
SAVE-A-LOT HOLDINGS: Mislabels Truli Vanilla Drinks, Swantek Says
SHANTA'S BAKERY: Dario Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Smith Sues Over Drop in Share Price
SUN VALLEY: Pineda Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Scarantino Objects Proposed Sale to Blackstone
THERMON GROUP: Faces Class Suit in Quebec of THS Heating Elements
TIVITY HEALTH: Faces Strougo Suit Over Decline in Share Price
TYLER MEMORY: Hawkins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UGI CORP: Agreement Reached in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay JSA Benefits Under ERISA, Brown Says
UNITED STATES: Texas Northern Dist. Dismisses w/o Prejudice Valle
VCI CONSTRUCTION: Faces Olivas Employment Suit in California
VERTILUX LIMITED: Suros FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Faces Mabry FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
WECOMPETE INC: Faces Weisberg Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
WEST 4TH STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Santos Claims
WESTGATE RESORTS: Faces Stewart TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
WESTPAC BANKING: Clients Fear Setback in Insurance Class Action
WW NORTH AMERICA: Newman Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
YOUNG MEN'S: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Brown Alleges
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4
*********
108TH STREET: Moreyra Suit Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEMESIO TORRES MOREYRA and JESUS CHALE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 108TH STREET OWNERS CORP., and
JORGE RAMON CENTURION, as individuals, Case No. 2:20-cv-00554
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from
underpaid minimum wages.
Mr. Moreya was employed from Nov. 2013 until June 2018 as a
construction worker, and performing other miscellaneous duties. Mr.
Chale was employed from Nov. 2014 until Jan. 2019 performing the
same duties with Mr. Moreya.
The Defendant is a homeowners' association.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: 718 263-9591
3M CO: 150 Class Suits Filed over Aqueous Film Forming Foam
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that 150 putative class action
and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M (along with other
defendants) in various state and federal courts related to Aqueous
Film Forming Foam (AFFF).
3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2002.
As of December 31, 2019, 150 putative class action and other
lawsuits have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants)
in various state and federal courts where current or former
airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were
located.
As previously noted, some of these cases have been brought by state
or territory attorneys general.
In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used
in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used
and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties,
diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs,
and in some cases, personal injury and funds for medical
monitoring.
The United States, the U.S. Department of Defense and several
companies have been sued along with 3M, including but not limited
to Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire
Protection Co., Chemguard, Chemours, DuPont, National Foam, Inc.,
and United Technologies Corp.
In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF
cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to
centralize pre-trial proceedings.
Additional AFFF cases continue to be transferred into the MDL as
they are filed or removed to federal court. As of December 31,
2019, there were 147 cases in the MDL, 142 of which name 3M as a
defendant. The parties in the MDL are currently in the process of
conducting discovery.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the proceedings in the
"Billing" case remains stayed.
In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative
class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer
Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City
of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama (the
"Billings" case).
Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who
are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend
defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the Tennessee River
and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health
and properties. In January 2017, the court in the St. John case,
stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: New York Class Action Over Water Contamination Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit in New York over water
contamination.
In New York, 3M is defending 47 individual cases and one putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York and four additional cases filed in New York
state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
(Saint-Gobain), Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De
Nemours and Co. (DuPont).
The plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that was used for manufacturing
purposes at Saint-Gobain's and Honeywell's facilities located in
the Village of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick.
The plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls
became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the
activities of the defendants and allege that they suffered bodily
injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA.
The plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and
punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
In addition, 3M is defending eight cases filed by Nassau County
drinking water providers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that 3M,
DuPont, and additional unnamed defendants are responsible for the
contamination of plaintiffs' water supply sources with various PFAS
compounds. These cases are in the preliminary stages of
litigation.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: Parties in St. John Case Seek to Extend Stay Through April
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that parties in the "St. John
Case" have submitted a joint motion to extend the stay of the case
through April 2020.
A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M,
BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking
property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or
near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The
St. John case was stayed through January 2020, pending ongoing
mediation between the parties involved in this case and another
case.
The parties have submitted a joint motion to extend the stay
through April 2020. Two additional putative class actions filed in
the same court by certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur
plant seeking relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the
Stover case, respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the St. John case.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M COMPANY: Faces Manuel Suit Over AFFF Products in S. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is captioned as Orrel Manuel and Carolyn Manuel v. 3M
COMPANY, National Foam Inc., Arkema Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment
Company, Dowdupont Inc., The, Kidde-Fenwal Inc., United
Technologies Corporation, Tyco Fire Products LP, EI Du Pont De
Nemours and Company, Kidde PLC Inc., Chubb Fire LTD, UTC Fire &
Security Americas Corporation Inc., Chemours Company FC LLC, and
Chemguard Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00235-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 23,
2020).
The Manuel case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873 RE: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The lead case is Case
No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG.
3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide.[BN]
ABIOMED INC: Continues to Defend NY Shareholders Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend several class action suits in New York.
On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class
action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"),
on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through
July 31, 2019.
On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was
filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons
or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019.
Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to
be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed
lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed
motions to consolidate the two cases.
Since October 7, 2019, two of the shareholders have withdrawn their
applications to be lead plaintiff.
After the court selects one of the two remaining shareholders as
lead plaintiff, that plaintiff is expected to file an amended
complaint.
The complaints allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with
allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its
financial condition and results of operations. The Company has
reviewed and not yet responded to the complaints.
The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
plans to defend itself vigorously.
Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart
failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest,
heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the
pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in
the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional
cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for
patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or
emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery
procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Masachussetts.
ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Faces Moultrie FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACTIVATE FINANCIAL,
LLC. The case is styled as Sherri Moultrie, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACTIVATE FINANCIAL, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01896 (D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Activate Financial, LLC, is a fully licensed, national, third-party
collections agency focused on bad debt recovery and skip tracing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Court Dismisses Robertson FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted AllianceOne's motion to dismiss the
case captioned SHELLY ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00749-DAD-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), without leave to amend.
Prior to May 2019, the Plaintiff took out a line of consumer credit
with Target, a branded retail store chain. Thereafter, her account
went into arrears and was referred for collection to AllianceOne, a
debt collection entity. On May 9, 2019, AllianceOne sent the
Plaintiff a one-page notice. The notice stated that $238.00 was
the "Minimum Amount Due" on the account.
On May 29, 2019, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class action
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Therein,
she contends that the notice she received violates the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and California's Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), because it contains
a demand for payment that overshadows or conflicts with her debt
validation rights and because it is misleading and deceptive.
On July 30, 2019, AllianceOne filed the pending motion to dismiss,
contending that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim
because: (1) the notice does not demand a payment; and (2) even if
it did, that purported demand does not violate the FDCPA or the
RFDCPA. On Sept. 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her opposition to
the pending motion, and on Oct. 7, 2019, AllianceOne filed its
reply thereto. A hearing on the motion was held on Oct. 16, 2019.
Judge Drozd is satisfied that the various Ninth Circuit authorities
that he has relied upon compel the conclusion that the notice at
issue does not violate Section 1692g of the FDPCA. As those and
other similar decisions demonstrate, in each case where a court has
concluded that Section 1692g was violated, payment was demanded
within a time period less than the statutory 30 days granted to
dispute the debt and the demand was communicated in a format that
emphasized the duty to make payment, and obscured the fact that the
debtor had 30 days to dispute the debt. That is simply not the
case. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.
Next, the Judge finds that even if the Plaintiff's allegations with
respect to the alleged Section 1692e violations had been included
in her complaint, her Section 1692e claim would still fail to state
a cognizable claim for relief because those allegations are not
applicable to the notice that she received. Accordingly, the Judge
finds that she has failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e.
Having already found that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege
a violation of the FDCPA, it necessarily follows that the complaint
also fails to allege a cognizable claim for violation of the
RFDCPA.
Finally, the granting of leave to amend would be futile because the
only factual allegations that could support a claim to relief would
be based on the notice received by the Plaintiff. The Judge has
concluded that notice did not violate the FDCPA or the RFDCPA.
Thus, there are no additional facts the Plaintiff could allege that
could plausibly state a cognizable claim. He will therefore grant
AllianceOne's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
For these reasons, Judge Drozd granted AllianceOne's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend, and the Clerk of the Court is
directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mzLL6C from Leagle.com.
Shelly Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Thomas Martin,
III -- tom@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC & Nicholas J.
Bontrager -- nick@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC.
AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Craig Joel Mariam -- cmariam@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP &
Stephanie Lee Cobau -- scobau@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP.
AMERICAN FLAGGING: Eliely Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Eliely, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Flagging & Traffic Control, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 701397/2020 (N.Y. Sup., January 27, 2020),
seeks to recover all available damages, including unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages and spread of hours pay, compensation
for not receiving notices and wage statements, liquidated damages,
other damages including punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs
of the action pursuant to New York labor laws.
American Flagging provided flagging services to its clients where
Eliely worked as a flagger from August 2019 to November 27, 2019.
He claims to have rendered 66-84 or more hours a week, about 11-12
hours a day or more, 6-7 days a week, all without overtime pay and
an extra hour of pay for each day in which they worked a spread of
hours in excess of 10 hours. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Tel: (718) 740-1000
Fax: (718) 740-2000
E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com
AMERICAN FREEDOM: Illegal Collects Biometric Info, Ramos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN FREEDOM INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2020CH02312 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 25, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's illegal actions in collecting, storing and using the
Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information without
obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data
retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the
Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being
required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff
asserts.
BIPA confers on him a right to know of such risks, which are
inherently presented by the collection and storage of biometrics,
and a right to know how long such risks will persist after
termination of their employment, the Plaintiff contends. Yet, the
Defendant never adequately informed Plaintiff or the Class of its
biometrics collection practices, never obtained the requisite
written consent from the Plaintiff regarding its biometric
practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction
policies to the Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois.
American Freedom Insurance Company is an insurance company
registered in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.283.3814
Fax: 773.496.8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
AMICA MUTUAL: Gottlieb Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premium
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETER A. GOTTLIEB, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons
Similarly Situated v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
20-292 (Mass. Super., Jan. 31, 2020), challenges the alleged
excessive and unsupported premium increases in Amica's insurance
policy.
The Plaintiff brings this action, for himself and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated homeowners, who are insurance
policyholders of Amica for breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, money had and received, and unfair or deceptive acts.
According to the complaint, Amica refused to provide a substantive
response when the Plaintiff made demand upon Amica in an effort to
determine its reason for excessive increases in his homeowner's
premiums. Instead, the Company parroted back language from the
policy, which did not support the dramatic increase in premiums.
Mr. Gottlieb resides in Burlington, Massachusetts, and owned a
homeowners insurance policy issued by Amica containing endorsement
form HO 05 08 05 11 Specified Additional Amount of Insurance from
March 10, 2015, to March 10, 2016 (the Policy).
Amica is a mutual property-casualty insurance company domiciled in
Lincoln, Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Petei-zavez, Esq.
Noah Rosmarin, Esq.
Brendan M. Bridgeland, Esq.
ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
90 Canal Street, 1st Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617)367-1040
Facsimile: (617) 742-8280
ANDREW WILKIN: Silva Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH SILVA, and ANDREW SMITH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ANDREW WILKIN, Case No.
1:20-cv-00256 (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated workers the federal minimum
wage for hours that they worked.
Ms. Silva was employed by Mr. Wilkin as an Administrative
Assistant. She was an hourly employee who by agreement with her
employers was entitled to an hourly wage of $16.50 per hour for
hours worked at or under 40 per week and overtime compensation of
$24.75 per hour for the hours she worked over 40 per week. Mr.
Wilkin failed to compensate her for at least 64 hours of work she
performed in June 2019, thus, violating the FLSA, according to the
complaint.
Mr. Smith was employed by the Defendant as a Field Service
Technician. He was an hourly employee who by agreement with his
employers was entitled to an hourly wage of $15.50 per hour for
hours worked at or under 40 per week and overtime compensation of
$23.25 per hour for the hours he worked over 40 per week. The
Defendant failed to compensate for at least 68 hours of work he
performed in June 2019, thus, violating the FLSA, Mr. Smith
alleges.
The Plaintiffs contend that there are at least 71 other individuals
who, like them, were employed by Mr. Wilkin and were not paid any
wages for hours that they worked during June 2019. These
similarly-situated employees were all terminated by Mr. Wilkin on
June 27, 2019.
Mr. Wilkin is a Colorado resident, who conducted business within
the State of Colorado managing, running, owning and controlling
Acute Property Management, LLC, which did business as "Acute
Living."
On July 12, 2019, Acute Property Management, LLC filed for
bankruptcy protection within the federal Bankruptcy Court in
Denver, Colorado, in the case styled as In re Acute Property
Management, LLC, Case No. 19-15984-EEB.
The Plaintiffs say their action does not involve the debtor in that
bankruptcy case or any related cases. The Plaintiffs bring their
claims in this action against Mr. Wilkin individually in his role
as an employer under the FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
David H. Miller, Esq.
THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: 303-839-1650
E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
AHarrison@sawayalaw.com
ASSET RECOVERY: Osby Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vantish Osby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company and Security Credit Services, LLC, a Mississippi
limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00725 (N.D. Ill., Jan.
31, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's debt collection actions
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The case seeks to recover damages for the Defendant's violations of
the FDCPA.
Ms. Osby is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in the
Northern District of Illinois. The Defendant attempted to collect
defaulted consumer debts that she allegedly owed originally to
American Credit Acceptance for a loan to purchase a car for her
personal use.
On Feb. 2014, Ms. Osby fell behind on paying her bills, including a
debt she allegedly owed for an American Credit Acceptance debt.
Sometime after that debt went into default, it was allegedly
acquired by Defendant SCS, which tried to collect upon it by having
Defendant ARS send Ms. Osby a form collection letter, dated May 8,
2019. This letter asked her "resolve" the debt or face continued
negative credit reporting.
Ms. Osby asserts that the Defendants' form debt collection letter
alarmed and upset her and confused her as to what she should do
about the debt at issue.
Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Telephone: (708) 974-2900
Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
mephilipps@aol.com
angie@philippslegal.com
- and -
Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
222 West Gregory, Suite 210
Kansas City, MO 64114
Telephone: (816) 822-4041
E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com
AT&T CORP: Bid for Equitable Tolling in Calloway FLSA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE CALLOWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T CORP., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18 C 06975 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Edmond E.
Chang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
for equitable tolling.
Telephone-call center employees have brought the proposed
collective action against five AT&T entities: AT&T Corp.; AT&T,
Inc.; AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.; AT&T Services, Inc.; and AT&T
Operations, Inc. The employees allege that they were deprived of
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). AT&T responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing (among
other things) that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over
them. The Court eventually terminated that motion without
prejudice to allow for limited jurisdictional discovery. The
parties are currently still in the midst of jurisdictional
discovery.
Pending now is the Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling,
requesting that the statute of limitations for putative
collective-action members be tolled from Dec. 19, 2018 (the filing
date of the Plaintiffs' motion to stay the briefing on AT&T's
motion to dismiss) going forward until the date that the Court
decides the jurisdictional issue.
According to the Plaintiffs, the case's allegedly unique procedural
posture presents an extraordinary circumstance that warrants
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Specifically,
they contend that AT&T's motion to dismiss, and the resultant stay
on merits discovery has created significant delays in the
Plaintiffs' ability to file a motion for conditional certification.
In their view, it is unfair for the potential opt-in employees to
be prejudiced by the delay in getting to conditional
certification.
Judge Chang finds that the Plaintiffs have not even had the chance
to file a conditional certification motion because the parties are
litigating the personal-jurisdiction dispute, which naturally has
and will delay the filing of the conditional certification motion.
The part of the equitable-tolling standard where the Plaintiffs'
argument clearly comes up short is the requirement that the opt-ins
were prevented from joining the lawsuit because of the delay in
filing the conditional certification motion. No decision on
conditional certification is needed to permit the filing of another
lawsuit or another opt-in notice in the suit. Neither have the
potential opt-ins been deprived of any information essential to
deciding whether they have a claim.
What is more, the delay of which the Plaintiffs complain is not
totally "beyond their control." The named Plaintiffs say that the
delay is all AT&T's fault. But it was the Plaintiffs who decided
to file their collective action in the Northern District of
Illinois in the first place.
Indeed, it is worth noting that, on the diligence requirement, the
relevant question will be whether the later-filing Plaintiffs were
diligent in pursuing their claims. All of this depends on
arguments not yet presented by the Plaintiffs who have not yet
opted-in. Not surprisingly, some courts have held that any decision
on equitable tolling as it applies to putative plaintiffs would
amount to an advisory opinion.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Chang agrees that it is not possible
to decide whether equitable tolling applies to the Plaintiffs not
yet in the case. The Judge denied the motion for en masse
equitable tolling, but did so without prejudice to individual
employees later arguing that their specific circumstances justify
tolling.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/D7UFlf from
Leagle.com.
Diane Calloway, Doretta Wagner, Carolyn Adams-Harris, Bridgett
Tift, James Bloch, Mary Hanley, Audrey Michelle Otis, China Kellam
& Sharon McKenzie, Plaintiffs, represented by Glen Joseph Dunn,
Jr., Glen J. Dunn & Associates & Jeffrey Grant Brown, Jeffrey Grant
Brown, P.C.
AT&T Corp., AT&T, Inc., AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Services,
Inc. & AT&T Operations, Inc., Defendants, represented by Karl
Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Llp,
Patrick Sean Coffey, Husch Blackwell LLP & Robert Matthew Romashko
-- rknelson@gibsondunn.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP.
AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T
MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. MCV081925 (Filed Aug. 27, 2019), was
removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County
of Madera to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Jan. 31, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00172-LJO-BAM to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that AT&T adopted a time keeping program
"that did not accurately reflect the start and stop time of hourly
employees," resulting in unpaid overtime pursuant to the California
Labor Code.
AT&T is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Raymond w. Bertrand, Esq.
James P. De Haan, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 458-3000
Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
E-mail: raymondbertrand@paulhastings.com
jamesdehaan@paulhastings.com
AXON ENTERPRISES: Only Fraudulent Omission Claim Remains in Richey
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted in part and denied in part Axon's motion to dismiss
the case, DOUGLAS RICHEY, Plaintiff, v. AXON ENTERPRISES, INC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00192-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.).
The action stems from a dispute relating to the alleged defective
design of certain models of conducted electrical weapons ("CEWs")
manufactured by Axon. Axon, formerly Taser International, Inc.,
manufactures CEWs (also known as "Tasers"). It has developed the
Pulse, X2, and X26P models of CEWs, and has previously manufactured
the now discontinued C2 model of CEW. Each of Axon's CEW models
are covered with an express limited warranty. The Warranty
represents that the models will be free from defects in workmanship
and materials for a period of one year from the date of receipt.
It also provides that if the company receives a "valid warranty
claim" within the warranty period, Axon will "repair or replace the
product" and that Axon's sole responsibility under the warranty is
to either repair or replace with the same or like product, at
Axon's discretion.
In 2016, Richey purchased a C2 model CEW from Axon. In October of
that year, Richey fired the weapon, but it malfunctioned when the
prongs ejected only one to two feet. Richey then notified Axon
customer service of the issue. Axon shipped a Pulse model CEW to
Richey at his home in Corte Madera, CA as a replacement for his
malfunctioning model. On Jan. 18, 2017, while the safety switch on
the CEW was in the "safe" position, the CEW discharged in Richey's
pocket without him pulling the trigger. The barbs of the CEW stuck
into Richey's jacket but, while he had to rip his jacket pocket to
free the barbs, he was not personally harmed in the incident.
After inspecting the device, Richey determined that the safety
mechanism had become disengaged. That same day, he contacted
Axon's customer service, informing them of the misfire. On Jan.
26, 2017, an Axon representative told Richey that their engineers
are currently aware of the safety switch activation issue and are
working on a solution. While Axon offered to send Richey two
replacement barb cartridges, Axon did not repair or replace
Richey's Pulse CEW. On Feb. 22, 2017, the counsel for Richey sent
a letter to Axon informing it of the defective safety mechanism in
the Pulse, X2 and X26P CEWs. To date, Axon has not repaired or
replaced Richey's Pulse model CEW.
On June 25, 2018, Richey filed a putative class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. On Aug. 9, 2018, Richey voluntarily dismissed the
California Complaint. On April 9, 2019, Richey filed the action,
alleging that the Pulse, X2 and X26P models suffered from a design
defect that caused the CEWs to accidentally arm and discharge.
Richey asserted the following claims against Axon: violation of the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; fraudulent omission; unjust
enrichment; and violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices
Act ("NDTPA"). On July 8, 2019, Axon moved to dismiss all of
Richey's claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
(b)(6).
Axon seeks dismissal primarily on two grounds. First, Axon argues
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Richey
lacks standing to bring his claims. Second, it argues that Richey
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Judge Du granted in part and denied in part Defendant Axon's motion
to dismiss. She granted the motion as to all but the Plaintiff's
state law fraudulent omission claim.
The Judge finds that while the general rule is that fraudulent
omission requires "some fiduciary relationship" between the
parties, the duty to disclose may arise without any confidential
relationship where the defendant alone has knowledge of material
facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff. In the case,
Richey alleges that Axon's engineers were aware of the alleged
defect, that Axon did not inform consumers of the defect through
their user manuals or otherwise, and that consumers could not have
reasonably been expected to know about the defect. These specific
factual allegations adequately plead Axon's knowledge of material
facts that were not accessible to Richey. Additionally, these
facts support Richey's allegation that Axon intended to induce, and
did induce, Richey and other consumers to purchase the allegedly
defective products. Because Richey has adequately pleaded each of
the elements of fraudulent omission under the heightened pleading
standard, the Judge denied Axon's motion to dismiss Richey's
fraudulent omission claim.
Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to
several cases not discussed. She has reviewed these arguments and
cases, and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they
do not affect the outcome of the issues before the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Vhpg2b from Leagle.com.
Douglas Richey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles A. Jones, Jones Law
Firm LLC, James Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mtattorneys.com --
Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C., pro hac vice,
James M. Terrell, pro hac vice, Kelly McInerney, Jones Law Firm LLC
& Courtney Cooper Gipson -- cgipson@mtattorneys.com -- Methvin,
Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C.
Axon Enterprises, Inc., formerly doing business as Taser
International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Douglas
Blakley, Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Adrienne R. Brantley-Lomeli --
abrantley@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Amy Lynn
Nguyen, Axon Enterprise, Inc, pro hac vice, J. Christopher
Jorgensen -- cjorgensen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Kristen L. Martini -- kmartini@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP & Pamela B. Petersen, TASER International,
Inc.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Durkee Class Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America,
N.A., et al. The case is styled as Andrea F. Durkee, on Behalf of
Herself All Others Similarly Situated v. Bank of America, N.A.,
Does 1-100, Case No. 3:20-cv-00347-W-LL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 24,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong
Kong, and Toronto.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 762-1910
Fax: (619) 756-6991
Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Time to Submit Claims in GSE Bond Suit Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
19-cv-1704 (JSR) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York extended (i)
the opt-out and objection deadline for class members who did not
receive a Notice Packet to Feb. 14, 2020; and (ii) the deadline for
all class members to submit their claims to Feb. 28, 2020.
The Court has received letters from three potential class members
in the case regarding the Plaintiffs' settlements with Deutsche
Bank Securities, Inc., First Tennessee Bank, N.A. and FTN Financial
Securities Corp., and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC. The Court ordered
the Plaintiffs' counsel to respond in writing to the letters, which
raised assorted concerns about the settlement process. It is
satisfied with the response of the Plaintiffs' counsel, attached as
Exhibit A to the Order.
However, in order to address concerns that one of these potential
class members raised about the timing of the mailing notice, Judge
Rakoff extended the opt-out and objection deadline to Feb. 14, 2020
for the class members who did not receive a Notice Packet before
the original Jan. 16, 2020 opt-out and objection deadline.
Further, he extended the deadline for all the class members to
submit their claims to Feb. 28, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FWhjeY from Leagle.com.
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Plaintiff,
represented by Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg P.C., Amanda F.
Lawrence - ALAWRENCE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott&Scott, Attorneys at
Law, LLP, Christian Levis - clevis@lowey.com - Lowey Dannenberg
P.C., George A. Zelcs - gzelcs@koreintillery.com - Korein Tillery,
LLC, Joseph Peter Guglielmo - JGUGLIELMO@SCOTT- SCOTT.COM - Scott
+
Scott, L.L.P., Justin W. Batten - JBATTEN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott
and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Kristen M. Anderson -
KANDERSON@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM - Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP,
Margaret Ciavarella MacLean - mmaclean@lowey.com - Lowey
Dannenberg
P.C., Randall P. Ewing, Jr. - rewing@koreintillery.com - Korein
Tillery, LLC, Roland Raymond St. -rstlouis@lowey.com - Louis, III
,
Lowey Dannenberg P.C.
Bank of America, N.A. & Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Inc.,
Defendants, represented by John E. Schmidtlein -
jschmidtlein@wc.com - Williams & Connelly L.L.P., pro hac vice,
Beth A. Stewart - bstewart@wc.com - Beth Stewart Esq, Jesse T.
Smallwood - jsmallwood@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP, Jonathan
Bradley Pitt - jpitt@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP, Lauren Anna
Howard - lhoward@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP & William
Jefferson Vigen - wvigen@wc.com - Williams & Connolly LLP.
Barclays Bank PLC & Barclays Capital Inc., Defendants, represented
by Lawrence Edward Buterman - lawrence.buterman@lw.com - Latham &
Watkins, LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova - lilia.vazova@lw.com -
Latham & Watkins, LLP, Richard David Owens - richard.owens@lw.com
-
Latham & Watkins, LLP, Adam Brian Shamah - adam.shamah@lw.com -
Latham & Watkins, LLP, Eric Lewis Taffet , Latham & Watkins, LLP,
885 3rd Ave New York, NY, 10022-4834 & Gregory Stephen Mortenson -
gregory.mortenson@lw.com - Latham & Watkins, LLP.
BECTON DICKINSON: 14,330 Hernia Product Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
is defending approximately 14,330 product liability claims
involving the Company's line of hernia repair devices as of
December 31, 2019.
The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions.
In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions
in Canada.
Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to
time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product
Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation.
Trials are scheduled throughout 2020 in various state and/or
federal courts.
The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to
take place over the next 12 months.
In August 2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") was
ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio.
The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.
Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.
BECTON DICKINSON: 2,650 Filter Product Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company
is defending approximately 2,650 product liability claims involving
the Company's line of inferior vena cava filters as of December 31,
2019.
The majority of those claims are currently pending in a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona, but those MDL claims either have been, or
are in the process of being, remanded to various federal
jurisdictions. Filter Product Claims are also pending in various
state court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in
Arizona State Court.
In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada.
The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company
has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of
certain of the Filter Product Claims.
The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in
future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled
or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.
On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or
transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above,
remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to
continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials
are scheduled throughout 2020.
As of December 31, 2019, the Company entered into settlement
agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for
approximately 6,400 cases. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first
MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn
and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs.
The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability
design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c)
negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict. On June 1,
2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of
the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the Court entered
summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the third
MDL trial. On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial
unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. The
Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take
place over the next 12 months.
In most product liability litigation, plaintiffs allege a wide
variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury
caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation
notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases,
the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete information
regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions and,
consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The Company
expects that it will receive and review additional information
regarding any remaining unsettled product liability matters.
In connection with the settlement of a prior litigation with
certain of the Company's insurance carriers, an agreement with the
Company's insurance carriers was reached to reimburse the Company
for certain future costs incurred in connection with Filter Product
Claims up to an agreed amount. For certain product liability claims
or lawsuits, the Company does not maintain or has limited remaining
insurance coverage.
Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.
BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 750 Women's Health Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company
is defending approximately 750 product liability claims involving
the Company's line of pelvic mesh devices as of December 31, 2019.
The majority of those claims are currently pending in various
federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state
court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include putative
class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the
figures above are approximately 1,010 filed and unfiled claims that
have been asserted or threatened against the Company but lack
sufficient information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of
the Company is actually at issue.
The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as
successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a
supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability
relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured.
In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in
which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing
settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that
relate to products distributed by the Company under supply
agreements with Medtronic.
In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015
agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements.
As of December 31, 2019, the Company has paid Medtronic $141
million towards these potential settlements. The Company also may,
in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of
additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar
terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the
Company and Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims
that do not settle, if any.
The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and
other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the
subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are
referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims."
The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.
As of December 31, 2019, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,165 of the Women's Health Product Claims.
The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section.
Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.
Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").
The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or
trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health
Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2020 in state and
federal courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding
began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict
against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive).
The Company is in the process of appealing that verdict. The
Company expects additional trials of Women’s Health Product
Claims to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially
include consolidated trials.
During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits
against the Company.
Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the class action
suit entitled, In re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation.
In April 2019, two purported class action complaints, one captioned
McComas v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., and the other captioned
Speiser v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., were filed against the
Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company, the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering
(IPO), and the Company's alleged controlling stockholders.
The complaints were consolidated in July 2019 in the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania under the caption In
re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, with the
McComas complaint, as subsequently amended, as the operative
pleading.
Both complaints allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against all defendants and controlling person claims
under Section 15 of the Act against certain defendants. The
plaintiffs purport to represent similar classes of persons who
purchased BrightView stock in its IPO in July 2018 or purchased
BrightView stock in the market that was traceable to the shares
issued in the IPO.
The complaints allege that the IPO prospectus was misleading
because it allegedly failed to disclose that a portion of
BrightView's contracts were underperforming and/or represented
undesirable costs to the Company and that, as a result, BrightView
would implement a managed exit strategy from low margin or
non-profitable contracts that would negatively impact its future
revenues; and that BrightView failed to disclose an alleged labor
shortage caused by the Company's inability to hire sufficient
workers through the H-2B visa program would adversely affect
earnings.
On August 12, 2019, BrightView and the other defendants filed
preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the complaint as
legally insufficient. Defendants also filed a petition for
dismissal based on the provision in BrightView's certificate of
incorporation that designates the federal district courts of the
United States of America as the exclusive forum for resolving any
claim arising under the United States federal securities laws, or
to stay the action pending the decision of the Delaware Supreme
Court in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg. In that case, the Delaware
Supreme Court is expected to decide whether federal forum selection
provisions such as the one in BrightView's certificate of
incorporation are enforceable under Delaware law. On November 4,
2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On November 6, 2019, the Court overruled defendants' preliminary
objections and denied defendants' petition for dismissal or for a
stay. On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed answers to the
complaint, and discovery in the case is now ongoing.
Brightview said "The Company intends to continue to defend itself
vigorously against the actions. The Company is unable at this time
to determine the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, that it may incur as a result of these matters."
Brightview Holdings Inc. is a commercial landscaping services
provider. The Company provides commercial landscaping services,
ranging from landscape maintenance and enhancements to tree care
and landscape development. It operates through an integrated
national service prototype, which systematically delivers services
at the local levels. The company is based in Blue Bell,
Pennsylvania.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
defending against the Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Litigation.
In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including the company
were added as defendants in a civil multidistrict litigation
consisting of multiple individual and class action lawsuits filed
by indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and
retail pharmacies.
The plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical distributors encouraged
manufacturers to increase prices, provided anti-competitive pricing
information to manufacturers and informed manufacturers that they
wished to maintain current customer allocations for the purpose of
avoiding price erosion.
Cardinal Health said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in
these matters."
Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by the Louisiana
Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund.
In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed
a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and
certain current and former officers and employees in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015
and May 2018.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making
misrepresentations and omissions related to the integration of the
Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the
Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and
equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions.
Cardinal said, "We believe that the claims asserted in this
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
them."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.
CDI CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vasquez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan C. Vasquez, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. CDI CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01044-PD (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 24, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other employees to whom the
Defendant paid straight-time-for-overtime.
The Defendant does not pay its hourly employees overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff alleges.
Instead, he says, the Defendant pays its hourly employees the same
hourly rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Defendant's straight-time-for-overtime pay plan violates the
FLSA because hourly employees are owed overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one half times their
regular rates, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Vasquez worked for CDI as a Field Engineer.
CDI provides integrated engineering, design, architecture, and
project support services to the energy, chemicals, and
infrastructure markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq.
MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
123 S. 22nd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-568-3500
Facsimile: 215-578-3501
Email: tsweeney@messalaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
Michael K. Burke, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Photographs
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELBY ZELONIS ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00111-RDA-MSN (E.D. Va., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's unauthorized use of the proposed class members'
photographs for purposes of trade, in violation of the Virginia
Code and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has unlawfully obtained
the photographs of class members without their consent and used the
photographs for a facial recognition program for purposes of trade,
i.e., to make a profit.
Clearview is a for-profit company that has "scraped" billions of
photographs of individuals without their consent from the Internet
and loaded them into a database in order to use facial recognition
technology to compare photographs of unknown individuals against
its database of stolen photographs of known individuals.
"Scraping" is the process of extracting large amounts of
information from a Web site. This may be accomplished by
downloading individual Web pages or an entire site. The downloaded
content may include the text from the pages, the full Hypertext
Markup Language (commonly referred to as "HTML," which is a
standardized system for coding text files to achieve font, color,
graphic, and/or hyperlink effects), or both the HTML and images
from each Web page.
The acquisition of the photographs violated the terms of service of
the targeted Internet sites, the Plaintiff contends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
Aaron S. Book, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (888) 987-9991
E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com
abook@websterbook.com
COBALT COMMERCIAL: Ruiz Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
YANITZA V. RUIZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. COBALT
COMMERCIAL SERVICES, LLC and MARCOS BECARI, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-20462-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2020), seeks to recover
money damages for the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and
for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a busser and cleaning
employee from April 1, 2019, through Nov. 23, 2019. The Plaintiff
was sent to work to The Lincoln Eatery Food Hall, which is an
indoor court featuring multiple food vendors, such as cafeterias,
restaurants, and bars sharing common self-serve dinner areas,
entertainment, and sanitary installations.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay her a
minimum of 67.5 overtime hours, which represents a value of
$1,220.25. She adds that she did not clock in and out, but she
wrote a timecard, and the Defendants were able to keep track of the
hours she and other similarly situated employees worked.
Cobalt Commercial is a company providing maintenance and cleaning
services to commercial accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
COLLECTO INC: Oh Sues in New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. The
case is styled as Seung Eun Oh, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Collecto, Inc. doing business as: EOS
CCA, Case No. 2:20-cv-01937 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, operates as a debt
management and recovery resource company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Richardson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC, removed the case captioned as
JOSEPH RICHARDSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CONDUENT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case BCV-19-103468 (Filed Dec. 11, 2019), from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Kern to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 31,
2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00171-LJO-JLT to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the California
Labor Code by failing to provide compliant meal periods and rest
breaks, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, and failure to
pay wages timely upon termination.
Conduent is an American technology-led business process services
company.[BN]
Defendant Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC, is represented by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
Nicole s. Adler, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM
4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 906-4245
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
nsa@kullmanlaw.com
CULLIGAN INT'L: Kapp Suit Moved From Illinois to E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aaron Kapp, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Culligan
International Company, Eastern Wisconsin Water Conditioning Co.,
Culligan Soft Water Service, Unco Data Systems Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-00355, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 21, 2020.
The Wisconsin District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00286-JPS to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions.
Culligan Water is an American water treatment company headquartered
in Rosemont, Illinois. Culligan Water specializes in water
softeners, water filtration systems and bottled water for
residential, commercial, and industrial consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC
134 N LaSallle St., Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 658-5500
Fax: (312) 658-5555
Email: phil@bockhatchllc.com
david@classlawyers.com
mara@classlawyers.com
tod@classlawyers.com
- and -
Adam E. Urbanczyk, Esq.
Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq.
PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
1570 Oak Ave.
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone: (312) 787-2717
- and -
Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
1 N LaSalle, Suite 2255
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 787-2717
Fax: (888) 574-9038
The Defendants are represented by:
John Sheldon Letchinger, Esq.
Matthew J. Caccamo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
191 N Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 416-6206
mcaccamo@bakerlaw.com
- and -
John P. Ryan, Esq.
Brandon S. Stein, Esq.
David M. Schultz, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
151 N Franklin St., Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-3000
Fax: (312) 704-3001
Email: jryan@hinshawlaw.com
bstein@hinshawlaw.com
dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
DACOTAH BANK: Schultes Sues in North Dakota Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dacotah Bank. The
case is styled as Stacey Schultes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dacotah Bank, Case No.
3:20-cv-00028-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., Feb. 21, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Dacotah Bank provides banking, insurance, mortgage, and trust and
wealth management services to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
MONTGOMERY & PENDER, P.C.
5630 34th Avenue So., Suite 120
Fargo, ND 58104
Phone: (701) 281-8001
Email: mike@bullislaw.com
DARTMOUTH CLUBS: Truehart Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Truehart, an individual; Briggette Munnis, an individual;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARTMOUTH CLUBS,
INC. dba KING'S INN PREMIER GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Massachusetts
Corporation; CRAIG J. CABRAL, an individual; CREEP DOE MANAGER, an
individual; PAULIE DOE MANAGER, an individual; KIMBERLY DOE
MANAGER, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 4-6; and DOES 7-10, inclusive,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10374-DJC (D. Mass., Feb. 24, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for damages due to the Defendants evading
the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips
and demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House
Fees."
The Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage payments and denied
overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the
Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors," according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend
that the Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The
Plaintiffs add that the Defendants' practice of failing to pay
tipped employees violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers.
The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
john@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
DEVA CONCEPTS: Schwartz Sues Over Defective DevaCurl Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Schwartz and Mia Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a
DevaCurl, Case No. 1:20-cv-01657 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020), seek
compensatory damages and injunctive relief caused by the false,
fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices of the
Defendant in marketing and selling its hair care products,
including the DevaCurl Products.
In response to the growing trend of moving toward sulfate-free
shampoo and away from sulfate shampoos, as sulfates can potentially
cause damage to hair, in 2002, the Defendant created an innovative
new haircare category with the launch of No-Poo Original, according
to the complaint. Many consumers, including the Plaintiffs have
used the No-Poo Product as a complete shampoo replacement once or
twice a week to cleanse hair rather than using traditional shampoo.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs aver, consumers seeking a complete
alternative to traditional shampoo end up purchasing the No-Poo
Product.
Despite the "DevaCurl phenomenon" that has caused many curly haired
consumers across the United States to purchase and use the
Products, use of the Products cause scalp irritation, excessive
shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding during
normal use by consumers, the Plaintiffs allege. Indeed, thousands
of consumers have reported their hair failing out shortly after or
during actual use of the Products. The Plaintiffs argue that the
Defendant provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact
makes numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of
the Products.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant conceals and fails to
disclose the defective nature of its Products by actively
misleading consumers into believing that the hair loss and shedding
caused by the Products is "normal" and "common," that even
excessive shedding of over 100 strands of hair per day is "common,"
and that shedding is not preventable. They insist that the
Defendant unquestionably has knowledge and notice of the hair loss
and scalp irritation caused by the Products.
Despite notice and knowledge of the problems caused by the
Products, the Defendant has not recalled the Products, has not
provided any warnings of the known risks, has denied that the
Products cause the reported health issues, and has not offered its
customers any compensation for their damages, the Plaintiffs note.
Had they and other Class members known that the Defendant's
Products would cause hair loss, scalp irritation and other
problems, they would not have purchased the Products, the
Plaintiffs add.
The Plaintiffs purchased and used numerous DevaCurl Products.
The Defendant manufactures hair care products. The Company produces
and markets a range of products for cleaning, conditioning, and
styling curly hair.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Phone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: 845-356-4335
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Melissa Emert, Esq.
STULL, STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street, Suite 500
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 687-7230
Facsimile: 212-490-2022
Email: memert@ssbny.com
DEVACURL: Women File Class Action for Hair Fall, Flaky Scalps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie McNeal, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that former
devotees of the haircare brand DevaCurl said they have dealt with
hair falling out, itchy and flaky scalps, and loss of curls using
its products in recent months.
Now, the company has said it's investigating and testing the
products but still insists they're safe to use.
The allegations against the Instagram-famous haircare brand have
spread across the internet in recent weeks. A Facebook group
started by Stephanie Mero, a hairstylist in Florida who has been
speaking out against the company since August 2019, has grown to
nearly 30,000 members.
Many women in the group said their curls became lifeless,
misshapen, and dry after using DevaCurl. They shared photos showing
bald spots and flaky scalps they attributed to the use of the
brand's products.
In an apparent response to the allegations, DevaCurl released a
statement saying it had done testing and found "no safety issues
with our products."
"We don't speculate on why some people are attributing the
challenges with their curls to our products," the company said.
A spokesperson told BuzzFeed News DevaCurl is "conducting
additional testing with an independent party."
"All of our formulas are subject to rigorous and thorough testing
to ensure our products meet strict internal quality assurance
standards and regulatory requirements before they reach the
market," the spokesperson said.
Some of the women said they only realized what was happening to
their hair after watching a video by Ayesha Malik, who runs a
YouTube channel about curly hair tips and tricks.
After months of issues, Malik made a video called "Why I Stopped
Using DevaCurl." The video has since been viewed more than 1
million times.
Malik told BuzzFeed News she had been a hardcore devotee of
DevaCurl since 2013. Even though the products were expensive, Malik
said by 2014 she was totally sold on the benefits. She said she
thought that it was "the best hair line out there and I'm going to
use this the rest of my life."
Malik also told her followers how much she loved DevaCurl and said
by 2017 she had the best hair of her life.
But in 2018, she started to notice a change in her hair. According
to Malik, her hair began falling out, and her scalp became itchy
and flaky. Her curls turned into waves. In early 2019, she gave her
sister some of the products. Soon, her sister was complaining about
an itchy scalp too.
Still, it took Malik until last fall to seriously consider if
DevaCurl could be the problem.
"I was so blinded by my love for DevaCurl . . . I felt like I was
in a cult," she said.
She decided to speak out and make the video to help other
curly-haired women who also may be experiencing issues.
When Nelkis Torres from Orlando saw Malik's video, she could
immediately relate. Torres had thought she was having hormonal
issues and even got blood work done because her hair kept falling
out.
"I remember crying every time not wanting to wash my hair because I
knew how much hair I would lose," she wrote in the Facebook support
group.
When she saw the video and read more and more stories, Torres told
BuzzFeed News she realized "DevaCurl was the problem."
Torres had been using DevaCurl since 2016 and quit after seeing the
video. She described her hair as "dry and frizzy" and said she had
to keep cutting it because of the hair loss.
"I'm blessed that my curls are still here, unlike other girls, but
my hair is still damaged," she said.
One of those women whose curls lost their shape is Annie Vail, a
student at Cornell University. She told BuzzFeed News she had been
using DevaCurl for the past four years, but she started having
issues with it about a year ago.
"My hair [started] coming off in giant clumps in the shower, and my
curls drastically lost their definition," she said. "I have also
struggled with dandruff, an issue I never had a problem with until
I started to use DevaCurl."
She added: "I was spending money to color my hair, and then it
would all go to waste because DevaCurl caused my hair to fall out
in giant clumps."
Vail said she initially "dismissed the possibility" DevaCurl could
be the cause of her problems because it had such a good reputation
online.
But recently, she went on vacation and didn't bring her DevaCurl
products with her. She said she noticed an immediate difference and
stopped using DevaCurl.
"Since switching, my hair no longer has been falling out, and my
curls have slowly been coming back," she said.
The women who spoke to BuzzFeed News said they are now completely
dumping their DevaCurl in hopes of restoring their hair to its
former glory.
Torianne Smith of Ottawa said she invested in an entire DevaCurl
routine after switching over to using its products in 2018.
"My hair started falling out and breaking, so I cut it very short
to try to prevent it," she said, adding she now has bald spots.
Like Torres, Smith said she was so concerned about her hair loss
that she visited a doctor and tried supplements and vitamins to
help.
For many curly-haired women, the damage to their hair is about more
than just appearances, as Karen Collis told BuzzFeed News.
"The loss of curls is the worst part, as that is part of my
identity," she said. Collis said she experienced hair and curl loss
as well as scabbing on her scalp from the products.
The online complaints against DevaCurl also drew the attention of
attorneys interested in pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the
company. Two attorneys, Gary Klinger, Esq. --
gklinger@kozonislaw.com -- of Kozonis & Klinger and Gary Mason,
Esq. -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- at Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, are
currently seeking plaintiffs for a possible lawsuit.
The spokesperson for DevaCurl told BuzzFeed News that there "has
been no lawsuit filed against DevaCurl concerning our products or
their safety."
They said DevaCurl is committed to hearing its customers'
concerns.
"We are committed to providing our customers with all the
information they need to continue to use DevaCurl with confidence,"
they said. "We'll be posting updates on our website, and we
encourage our consumers to share their experiences with us at
customercare@devacurl.com. We will go above and beyond to help
anyone on their curl journey."
Malik said she is struggling with feeling guilty about recommending
DevaCurl to so many people. She said she is speaking out not
because she wants revenge or has animosity toward the company, but
because she wants to help other women.
"Nothing can happen to get me my hair back," she said. "There's
nothing that DevaCurl or anyone can do to get me what I once had."
[GN]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settlement to End Court Oversight of DYRS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Hamilton, writing for The DC Post, reports that D.C. Mayor
Muriel Bowser announced an agreement in a class action lawsuit that
is likely to end court oversight and monitoring of the D.C.
Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, if approved.
The court control over the department has been in place for 35
years as a result of a court ruling. Now the District and
Plaintiffs' counsel have reached a settlement to put an end to the
practice.
The class action lawsuit was originally filed in 1985 on behalf of
youth in the District's secure juvenile detention facilities, which
rehabilitates minors who commit crimes.
However, the D.C. Superior Court has to approve the settlement in
order for it to go into effect.
"The settlement agreement is a tremendous victory for our local
autonomy and demonstrates the progress we have made to improve and
strengthen the District's juvenile justice system," Bowser was
quoted as saying in a statement from the Office of the Mayor. "I am
confident that DYRS, under the leadership of Director Lacey, will
continue to lead the way in engaging vulnerable District youth with
evidence-based practices."
The District has put so much effort to strengthen its juvenile
justice system since the lawsuit was filed, according to the
statement. As part those efforts, it founded the Department of
Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) as a Cabinet-level agency,
closed Oak Hill and opened modern facilities, improved the
provision of a wide range of rehabilitative services in its secure
facilities and increased the safety of the facilities through
evidence-based behavioral management practices.
In 2015, the D.C. Superior Court approved a partial class action
settlement in the lawsuit, limiting court oversight of the city's
youth rehabilitation services. Bowser's office attributes the
development to the progress made by the District.
The new agreement will finish the oversight and allow the agency to
operate independently.
"This settlement is possible because DYRS worked hard to transform
the way it supervises and provides services to court-involved
youth," said Attorney General Karl Racine.
"Once finalized, this agreement will ensure that we enhance public
safety by meeting the rehabilitative needs of our young people. We
are thankful to DYRS Director Lacey's strong leadership in service
to the District of Columbia, and for the significant contributions
of our community partners, Special Arbiter Grace Lopes, the
Plaintiffs' counsel, and OAG attorneys who helped resolve this
case," Racine continued.
DYRS Director Clinton Lacey also celebrated the decision, saying
"This settlement demonstrates how far the District has come in
serving court-involved youth. Led by our vision, hope, resiliency
and empowerment of youth and families, and grounded in the core
principles of restorative justice, DYRS will continue provide the
highest quality of services to the youth in our care." [GN]
DKJJ DELI: Nunez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Soto Nunez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. DKJJ DELI FOOD CORP. (D/B/A DKJJ DELI FOOD)
and AMADO GUZMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01634 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020),
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the
complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the Defendants'
deli.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli located in Bronx,
New York, under the name "DKJJ Deli Food."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
DRAEGER'S SUPER: Faces Thompson Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Draeger's Super
Markets. The case is captioned as JASMINE T. THOMPSON, AN
INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS A PRIVATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
DRAEGER'S SUPER MARKETS, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY and DOES 1 TO 50,
INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20582671 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
Feb. 4, 2020).
A case management conference is set for July 8, 2020, at 10:30
a.m.
Draeger's operates stores. The Company offers meat, wines,
delicatessen, bakery products, housewares, bridal products, and
gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin E. Sullivan, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1180 S Beverly Dr., Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: ms@melmedlaw.com
DREAMCLOUD BRAND: Robinson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DREAMCLOUD BRAND LLC, d/b/a RESIDENT HOME, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01401 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 25,
2020), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff as an "independent contractor" rather than as its
employee. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff by the hour, but failed
to pay the overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
week as is required by the federal FLSA.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative.
DREAMCLOUD, d/b/a Resident Home, is an online retail business that
sells mattresses and home goods to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
Afroz Baig, Esq.
LEONARD CARDER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 272-0169
Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
Email: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
abaig@leonardcarder.com
DSV AIR & SEA: Suren Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Suren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DSV AIR & SEA, INC., Case No. 2020CH02310 (Ill. Cir.,
Cook Cty., Feb. 25, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's
biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining
informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention
and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the
Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being
required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff
alleges.
BIPA confers on the Plaintiff a right to know of such risks, which
are inherently presented by the collection and storage of
biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks will persist
after termination of their employment. Yet, the Defendant never
adequately informed the Plaintiff or the Class of its biometrics
collection practices, never obtained the requisite written consent
from the Plaintiff regarding its biometric practices, and never
provided any data retention or destruction policies to the
Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois.
DSV Air and Sea, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware and doing business in Cook County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.283.3814
Fax: 773.496.8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
EF EDUCATION: Sensibaugh Sues Over Automated Marketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON SENSIBAUGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EF EDUCATION FIRST, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-01068 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2020), alleges that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending automated
text message advertisements to wireless phone users, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant actually transmitted the
text messages at issue in this case to the Plaintiff and all other
putative Class members in an automated fashion and without human
intervention, with hardware and software that received and stored
telephone numbers and then automatically dialed such numbers.
Neither the Plaintiff, nor any other member of the putative Class,
provided their prior "express written consent" to the Defendant or
any affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of the Defendant to transmit
the subject text message advertisements to the 1529 Number or to
any other Class member's cellular telephone number by means of an
"automatic telephone dialing system."
EF Education is an international education company that specializes
in language training, educational travel, academic degree programs,
and cultural exchange. Founded in Sweden in 1965, today EF has
approximately 52,000 employees in 116 countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Thibodeaux Suit Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Synchrony
Bank, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-00271-UNA (D. Del., Feb.
25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, Equifax prepared and issued credit
reports concerning the Plaintiff that included inaccurate
information regarding a Synchrony Bank debt. The inaccurate
information furnished by Defendant Synchrony Bank and published by
Defendant Equifax is inaccurate since the Synchrony Bank debt was
being reported with a balance, despite the fact that Synchrony Bank
previously discharged this debt, and provided the Plaintiff with a
1099 as proof of the discharged debt. Further, the 1099 required
the Plaintiff to report this discharged debt as income.
The Plaintiff notified Equifax that he disputed the accuracy of the
information Equifax was reporting on or around March 4, 2019. The
Plaintiff specifically stated in a letter that he was disputing the
balance on the account and provided a copy of the 1099 from
Synchrony Bank as proof of the discharge of this debt.
Despite the dispute by the Plaintiff that the information on his
consumer report was inaccurate with respect to the disputed
Synchrony account, Equifax did not evaluate or consider any of the
information, claims, or evidence of the Plaintiff and did not make
an attempt to substantially reasonably verify that the derogatory
information concerning the disputed account was inaccurate, says
the complaint.
Equifax is a consumer reporting agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
EVENFLO COMPANY: Matthews Files Suit in District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflo Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Carla Matthews, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-10379-DJC (D. Mass., Feb. 24, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.
Evenflo Company, Inc. is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and
principally engages in the design, research and development,
manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby and ExerSaucer
branded juvenile products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Rose MacAuley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: (617) 482-3700
Email: jessicam@hbsslaw.com
FACILITIES EXPERTS: Stoneman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY STONEMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FACILITIES EXPERTS, LLC D/B/A URBAN GREENHOUSE, an
Arizona Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00221-DJH (D.
Ariz., Jan. 30, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that to solicit new customers, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited telemarketing with no regard for consumers'
privacy rights. He adds that the Defendant caused thousands of text
messages to be placed to his and Class Members' cellular
telephones, causing them injuries.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and Class Members and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.
The Defendant is a cannabis store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
HAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lee Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Collection
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Natia M. Lee, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Franklin Collection
Service, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01268 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Franklin Collection Service is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq.
Eric Donald Coleman, Esq.
Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8151
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com
thatz@sulaimanlaw.com
nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
G & A RESTAURANT: Whitehurst Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CANDIE WHITEHURST, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similiarly situated v. G & A RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a
GYARMATHY & ASSOCIATES, A Florida Profit Corporation; JAMES
GYARMATHY, individually; and RON PHILLIPS, individually, Case No.
2:20-cv-00067-TPB-MRM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and the class members are/were all non-exempt
employees subjected to the Defendants' pay scheme whereby they
purportedly paid the workers pursuant to the fluctuating work week
method, but where the salary was not fixed each week regardless of
the number of hours that the workers worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to compensate
her, and those similarly situated, a time-and-a-half overtime
premium for their hours worked over 40 in workweeks throughout the
relevant time period.
G&A owns and operates 13 KFC franchises in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 400
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 327-3039
E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com
amurthy@forthepeople.com
GERBER LIFE: Prewitt Insurance Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is captioned as Beulah Prewitt, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Gerber Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 20-CI-11, was removed from the Kentucky Circuit Court,
Laurel County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky (London) on Feb. 3, 2020.
The Eastern District of Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:20-cv-00027-REW-HAI to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Robert E. Wier.
The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance contract-related laws
Gerber Life was formed in 1967 in Fremont, Michigan. Gerber Life
provides juvenile and family life insurance products to
middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and
medium-sized businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Telephone: (502) 636-4333
Facsimile: (502) 636-4342
E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com
gerards@bsjfirm.com
Defendant Gerber Life Insurance Company is represented by:
Eric Wade Richardson, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
301 E. Fourth Street
3500 Great American Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 723-4019
Facsimile: (513) 852-7885
E-mail: ewrichardson@vorys.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: MSP Antitrust Suit Moved From Florida to Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-20170 (Filed
Jan. 15, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 31, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00737-JSC to the proceeding. The case s assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
The lawsuit alleges violation of antitrust-related laws.
According to the complaint, Gilead and its co-conspirators have
engaged in a long-running scheme to suppress competition with
respect to drugs used to treat Human Immunodeficiency Virus
infection--a disease which, if left untreated, destroys the immune
system, leading to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome and eventual
death.
Through an array of anticompetitive practices, including horizontal
agreements constituting per se violations of the antitrust laws,
Gilead acquired and maintained a monopoly for drugs that comprise
the modern HIV treatment regimen known as "combination
antiretroviral therapy." The scheme enabled Gilead and its
co-conspirators to unlawfully extend patent protection for their
drugs, impair entry by generic competitors, and charge exorbitant,
supra-competitive prices for the drugs that people living with HIV
need to survive, says the complaint.
MSP contends that its assignors and the Class have been injured,
and unless the Defendants' unlawful conduct is enjoined, will
continue to be injured, in their business and property as a result
of the Defendants' continuing conspiracy that violates the Sherman
Act.
The Defendants include GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., a Delaware for-profit
corporation; GILEAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND UC, an unlimited liability company
organized under the laws of Ireland; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
a Delaware for-profit corporation; E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, LLC, a
Delaware for-profit corporation; JAPAN TOBACCO, INC., a corporation
organized under the laws of Japan; JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL USA,
INC., a California for-profit corporation; AKROS PHARMA, INC., a
New York for-profit corporation; JANSSEN R&D IRELAND, a private
unlimited company organized under the laws of Ireland; and JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, INC., a New Jersey for-profit corporation.
Gilead Sciences is an American biotechnology company that
researches, develops and commercializes drugs. The Company focuses
primarily on antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV,
hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and influenza, including Harvoni and
Sovaldi. Bristol-Myers is an American pharmaceutical company,
headquartered in New York City. Bristol-Myers manufactures
prescription pharmaceuticals and biologics in several therapeutic.
Japan Tobacco is a cigarette manufacturing company and is part of
the Nikkei 225 index.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
Charles Edward Whorton, Esq.
David Lee DaPonte, Esq.
Jorge Alejandro Mestre, Esq.
Andres Rivero, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
E-mail: arolnick@riveromestre.com
cwhorton@riveromestre.com
ddaponte@riveromestre.com
jmestre@riveromestre.com
arivero@riveromestre.com
The Defendants are are represented by:
Jason Nelson Zakia, Esq.
Moneyede Martin, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131-2352
Telephone: (305) 371-2700
Facsimile: (305) 358-5744
E-mail: jzakia@whitecase.com
mmartin@whitecase.com
- and -
Jason A. Ross, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 942-5425
Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
E-mail: jason.ross@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Jerome Wayne Hoffman, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 353-2000
Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
E-mail: jerome.hoffman@hklaw.com
GLA COLLECTION: Adair Sues in M.D. Alabama Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.L.A. Collection
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Marcus Adair, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G.L.A. Collection
Company, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00125-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala., Feb. 24,
2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
GLA Collection Company Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradford Wayne Botes, Esq.
BOND BOTES REESE & SHINN PC
15 Southlake Lane, Suite 140
Birmingham, AL 35244
Phone: (205) 802-2200
Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com
HABIT RESTAURANTS: Stein Securities Suit Challenges Yum! Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, INC., RUSSELL WILLIAM BENDEL,
IRA FILS, JOSEPH J. KADOW, ALLAN W. KARP, KARIN TIMPONE, A. WILLIAM
ALLEN III, CHRISTOPHER K. REILLY and IRA ZECHER, Case No.
2:20-cv-01763 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the public holders of the common stock of Habit against the Company
and the members of its board of directors for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger between Habit and Yum! Brands, Inc.
On January 5, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $14.00 in cash for each share of
Habit Class A stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").
On February 4, 2020, in order to convince Habit shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff
alleges.
On February 19, 2020, the Company filed a Form DEFM14A Definitive
Proxy Statement that did not correct the materially incomplete and
misleading nature of the preliminary proxy, the Plaintiff says. The
Board has scheduled a special meeting of the Company's shareholders
on March 18, 2020.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading, the Plaintiff asserts. In particular, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by
Habit's financial advisor, Piper Sandler & Co., in support of its
opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on
which the Board relied.
The Plaintiff contends that it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior
to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make
an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff, who is a holder of Habit common stock, seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the
Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the omitted material
information is disclosed to Habit shareholders sufficiently in
advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
Habit is a burger-centric, fast casual restaurant that specializes
in preparing fresh, made-to-order char-grilled burgers and
sandwiches featuring USDA choice tri-tip steak, grilled chicken and
sushi-grade tuna cooked over an open flame.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
HILLSBOROUGH TITLE: Faces Urban Suit Over Illegal Closing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT URBAN and PATRICIA URBAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HILLSBOROUGH TITLE, INC., Case No.
102563969 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Jan. 31, 2020), arises
from closing fees improperly charged and collected by the Defendant
from buyers of real estate transactions throughout the State of
Florida.
The case seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and/or
damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.
On June 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs entered into a real estate purchase
and sale contract with the owner of certain real estate located in
Hillsborough, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the
Plaintiffs agreed to pay cash for the Seller's Property. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly charged and
collected closing fees from buyers of real estate in Florida.
The Defendant, a licensed title agency, is a Florida company
licensed and registered to do business in Florida, having offices
located throughout the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
Davie, FL 33328
Telephone: 954-889-3359
Facsimile: 954-889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-524-2820
Facsimile: 954-524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
- and -
Richard B. Feinberg, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313
Clearwater, FL 33755
Telephone: 727 231-6400
E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com
HUDSON HALL: Stewart Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK STEWART, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. HUDSON HALL LLC d/b/a MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, HUDSON
HALL HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, THINK FOOD GROUP,
LLC, and JOSE RAMON ANDRES PUERTA a/k/a JOSE ANDRES, Case No.
1:20-cv-00885 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid wages for off-the-clock work,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work as a cook in March
2019.
The Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise under the trade name
"MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN" at Hudson Yards, in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
JOSIE MARAN: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Josie Maran
Cosmetics, LLC. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Josie Maran Cosmetics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01582
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Josie Maran Cosmetics offers organic argan oil-infused,
eco-friendly skin care and cosmetic products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
KELLY SERVICES: Stanley FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marie Stanley, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES, INC.; CENTENE CORPORATION;
AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Case No. CGC-20-582242, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Feb. 24, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01376 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to allege a single claim for
relief against both the Defendants under the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
John W. Drury, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-460-5000
Facsimile: 312-460-7000
Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
jdrury@seyfarth.com
- and -
Eric Suits, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 498-7032
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
Email: esuits@seyfarth.com
- and -
Janeth H. Leader, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.433.1940
Fax: 415.399.8490
Email: jleader@littler.com
KEMET CORP: Settlement in Capacitors' Suit Awaits Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement made
in the class action suit entitled, In re: Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, is awaiting court approval.
KEMET and KEMET Electronics Corporation (KEC), along with more than
20 other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries (including
TOKIN), are defendants in a purported antitrust class action
complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No.
3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with the United States
District Court, Northern District of California (the "U.S. Class
Action Complaint").
The complaint alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money
damages.
On November 8, 2019 KEMET and KEC entered into a settlement
agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs in the
U.S. Class Action Complaint by which, in consideration for the
release of KEMET, KEC, and their affiliates from all claims
relating in any way to the conduct alleged in the U.S. Class Action
Complaint and from claims which could have been asserted in the
U.S. Class Action Complaint to the extent they relate to the sale
of capacitors in the United States, KEMET agreed to pay an
aggregate of $62.0 million to the settlement class of plaintiffs.
The Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, KEMET paid $10.0
million into an escrow account on December 6, 2019. The remaining
amount will be paid by KEMET within 12 months of the date of the
Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement
KEMET and KEC did not admit to any violation of any statute or law
or any liability or wrongdoing.
KEMET Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic
components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in
three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
L BRANDS: Faces Velazquez FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA VELAZQUEZ, CHRYSTAL FREGOSO, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated v. L BRANDS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20CV362674 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 3, 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 Plaintiffs seek statutory damages due to the Defendants'
systematic and willful violations of the FCRA.
L Brands is an American fashion retailer based in Columbus, Ohio. L
Brands' flagship brands include Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body
Works. L Brands posted $12.63 billion in revenue in 2017, and was
listed as 231 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list of largest United States
companies by revenue.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beveriy Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw. com
william@setarehlaw. com
alex@setarehlaw. com
- and -
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
- and -
David DeRubertis, Esq.
THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
4219 Coldwater Canyon Ave.
Studio City, CA 91604
E-mail: david@derubertislaw.com
LANNETT CO: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement in Pa. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
awaiting the court's final approval of the settlement in the class
action suit pending before the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer
damaged the purported class by making false and misleading
statements in connection with the possible renewal of the JSP
Distribution Agreement.
In December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in
January 2019. In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss. In May 2019, the Company
filed an answer to the amended complaint.
During May and June 2019, the parties negotiated a proposed
settlement and agreed to settle the litigation, by which the
Company agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 without an admission of
liability and subject to the negotiation of the terms of a
stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court.
In July 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and on July 31,
2019, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and scheduling
a hearing for final approval of the settlement for February 7,
2020.
Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend E.D. Pennsylvania Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company remains
a defendant in a class action suit in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company,
its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial
Officer damaged the purported class by including in the Company's
securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.
An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. In
December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.
Lannett said, "The Company believes it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these
claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the
suit at this time."
Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
LEGACY INSURANCE: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly
situated v. BENJAMIN FRUTCHEY; and LEGACY INSURANCE SOLUTIONS LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00257-SPL (D. Ariz., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making phone calls to cellular
telephones using an automated telephone dialing system, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that she has not consented to the receipt of
any calls from the Defendants and she has not provided her cell
phone number to the Defendants. By calling her, the Defendants
caused her and the putative class members actual harm, including
the aggravation and nuisance that necessarily accompanies the
receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, consumption
of electricity in cost per-kilowatt required to recharge the cell
phones, consumption of money or purchased blocks of calls, and wear
and tear on telephone equipment. The calls took time to receive and
her statutory right of privacy was invaded, she added.
Ms. Naiman is an individual, who resides in Maricopa County,
Arizona.
Benjamin Frutchey is an insurance producer located at 10401 Venice
Blvd., Suite 201, in Los Angeles, California. Frutchey is employed
by Legacy Insurance Solutions LLC, which operates a call center,
where automated equipment is used to place large numbers of
telemarketing calls.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Veronika Fabian, Esq.
CHOI & FABIAN, PLC
90 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 5
Chandler, AZ 85226
Telephone: (480) 517-1400
Facsimile: (480) 517-6955
E-mail: Veronika@choiandfabian.com
LOUISIANA: Expropriation Damages Award in Crooks Reversed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE CROOKS AND ERA LEA CROOKS, v. STATE OF
LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Case No. 2019-C-00160
(La.), Judge Michael E. Kirby of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
reversed in part the court of appeal-judgment insofar as it upheld
the expropriation damages award to the Lake Plaintiffs and to the
Swamp Plaintiffs.
In 1962, the United States began constructing various structures in
and around the Catahoula Basin pursuant to a
congressionally-approved navigation project under the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 to promote navigation on the Ouachita and Black
Rivers. In conjunction with that project, the State of Louisiana
signed an "Act of Assurances," which obligated the State to provide
the federal government with all lands and property interests
necessary to the project free of charge, and to indemnify the
federal government from any damages resulting from the project.
The project was completed in 1973 and, at that time, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service began managing the water levels in
and around the Catahoula Basin. As intended, these water
management activities increased water levels in the Catahoula Basin
and prolonged the natural annual high-water fluctuations. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service continues to manage the water levels in
the Catahoula Basin to this day. Also, the State, through the
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, has granted mineral leases in
the area known as Catahoula Lake.
On May 4, 2006, Plaintiffs Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks filed a
"Class Action Petition to Fix Boundary, For Damages and For
Declaration Judgment." The Crookses alleged that they represent a
class of landowners in the Catahoula Basin whose property is
affected by the increased water levels from the project.
Ultimately, the trial court certified the Plaintiffs as one class,
but subdivided that class into two groups -- the "Lake Plaintiffs"
and the "Swamp Plaintiffs" -- depending on the location of the
properties affected.
Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered a judgment in
favor of the Plaintiffs, declaring that the body of water in the
Catahoula Basin in 1812 was a permanent river that seasonally
overflowed and covered its banks; the riparian landowners, i.e.,
the Lake Plaintiffs, are the owners of these river banks; and the
State is liable for the inverse condemnation of these lands because
of the significant obstruction of the natural servitude of
drainage.
Relevant to the issue before the Court, the trial court denied the
State's exception of prescription, finding the Cooper v. Louisiana
Department of Public Works case to be on point and controlling.
The trial court found that the two-year prescriptive period of La.
R.S. 9:5624 does not apply because the statute addresses a
situation in which private property is damaged for public purposes,
and the case at hand involves claims for inverse condemnation,
i.e., an appropriation (taking) without the institution of formal
judicial proceedings. It court also found that the three-year
prescriptive period for takings found in La. R.S. 13:5111 does not
apply, because the United States, not the State, effected the
taking. The trial court then determined the prescriptive period
applicable to the case is the one-year prescriptive period for
damage to immovable property found in La. C.C. art. 3493.
In deciding the peremptory exception of no right of action, the
trial court found that the United States is the party that
inversely condemned the Plaintiffs' lands. Referring to the
language of the "Act of Assurances," it concluded the State
undertook the obligation of acquiring all lands, easements, and
rights of way, including flowage rights in overflow areas necessary
for the project, and agreed to "hold and save the United States
free from damages" due to the same. Again, the trial court relied
on Cooper to support its conclusion.
The trial court, citing Cooper, found that any interference with
the natural servitude of drainage constitutes a taking or damage
that entitles a landowner to compensation for inverse condemnation.
Based on its findings, the trial court awarded expropriation
damages of $28,745,438.40 to the Lake Plaintiffs and $9,550,800 to
the Swamp Plaintiffs, as owners of the overflow lands. The trial
court also awarded the Lake Plaintiffs $4,694,309.68 for oil and
gas royalties attributable to mineral production from the riparian
lands from May 2003 to trial.
The Court granted the State of Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources' writ application and ordered briefing and argument
limited to the issue of whether the lower courts erred in failing
to find that the Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims have
prescribed under either or both La. R.S. 13:511 or 28 U.S.C.
Section 2501.
After the Court granted the writ, but prior to oral argument,
pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2163, the State filed a peremptory
exception of prescription, arguing for the first time that if the
Court finds the Act of Assurances constitutes a stipulation pour
autrui, giving the Plaintiffs an inverse condemnation cause of
action against the State, then the Plaintiffs' action to enforce
the stipulation in their favor is subject to prescription of ten
years under La. C.C. art. 3499. The State also filed a peremptory
exception of no cause of action asserting the Plaintiffs have no
cause of action against the State for mineral royalties, and asks
the Court to vacate the award of $4,694,309.68, which represents
the oil and gas royalties attributable to the mineral production
from the riparian lands between May 2003 and the date of trial.
Having reviewed the evidence in the record, Judge Kirby finds no
manifest error with regard to the following factual findings by the
trial court: the body of water in the Catahoula Basin in 1812 was a
permanent river that seasonally overflowed and covered its banks;
the riparian landowners, i.e., the Lake Plaintiffs, own of the land
between the ordinary low and ordinary high water mark of the
river's bank; and the man-made structures installed in and around
the Catahoula Basin caused significant flooding of both the
riparian and overflow lands, which obstructed the natural servitude
of drainage of the area.
The facts in Cooper are, in all material respects, identical to the
facts in the present case. Nonetheless, Judge Kirby agrees with
dissenting Judge Amy that the majority in Cooper erred by applying
tort doctrine to an appropriation claim. In doing so, the Cooper
majority ignored the court's own longstanding precedent that the
taking of property, by flooding or otherwise, without proper
exercise of eminent domain, is not a tort but is considered an
appropriation. Furthermore, he agrees with Judge Amy that the
majority in Cooper erred in determining the United States, and not
the State, appropriated the Plaintiffs' property.
Having found that the Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims
against the State for compensation have prescribed, the Judge
expresses no opinion as to the applicability of 28 U.S.C. Section
2501 to the matter. Furthermore, the State's peremptory exception
of prescription raised in the Court regarding the applicability of
La. C.C. art. 3499 is moot.
Next, Judge Kirby addresses the State's peremptory exception of no
cause of action objecting to the Plaintiffs' claim for the mineral
royalties. He finds no merit to the State's argument that the
Plaintiffs' claim for reimbursement of the mineral royalties is
merely one of unjust enrichment whose remedy is against the unit
operators only, and its reliance on Taylor v. Woodpecker Corp. is
misplaced.
Taylor is distinguishable from the case at hand, as the defendant
in Taylor was the purchaser of production, not the royalty
recipient. That being the case, the Judge in Taylor concluded that
the purchaser could not be made to pay twice; rather the recipient
of the proceeds (the operator) was responsible for the
reimbursement. In the case, a review of the petition, and of the
evidence adduced without objection, reveals that the operative
facts which give rise to the litigation are that the State granted
mineral leases on the Plaintiffs' lands, and received mineral
royalties from those leases. Accepting these facts as true, the
Plaintiffs have asserted a cause of action against the State for
mineral royalties pursuant to La. C.C. art. 488.
Based on the foregoing, the peremptory exception of no cause of
action filed by the State is overruled. For the reasons expressed,
Judge Kirby reversed in part the court of appeal judgment insofar
as it upheld the award of $28,745,438.40, and the interest thereon,
to the Lake Plaintiffs, and the award of $9,550,800, and the
interest thereon, to the Swamp Plaintiffs, the owners of the
overflow lands, for compensation for the inverse condemnation of
their lands by the State. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7J47JT from Leagle.com.
MATTEL INC: NOMERS Sues Over Decline in Stock's Market Value
------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ORLEANS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. MATTEL, INC., MARGARET H.
GEORGIADIS, YNON KREIZ, JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER, and
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01056 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
31, 2020), arises from the Defendants' material misrepresentations
and omissions concerning Mattel's financial condition, its internal
control over financial reporting, and PwC's disqualifying conflicts
of interest as Mattel's auditor, which resulted in the decline of
the market value of Mattel's stock.
The complaint is a securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of Mattel common stock between August 2, 2017, and
August 8, 2019, inclusive. The claims asserted are alleged against
the Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff contends that Mattel misled investors concerning its
financial condition and the effectiveness of its internal control
over financial reporting, including by understating its income tax
expense by $109 million in the third quarter of 2017 and then by
working with its auditor, PwC, to manipulate the Company's
accounting to conceal this misstatement and avoid restating the
Company's financial results.
The truth began to be revealed on August 8, 2019, when, after the
close of trading, Mattel disclosed that it was made aware of an
anonymous whistleblower letter and that, as a result, it was
abruptly cancelling a $250 million debt offering scheduled to close
that day. In response to this news, Mattel's stock price fell from
$13.43 per share on August 8, 2019, to $11.31 per share on August
9, 2019, on unusually high trading volume, a decline of over 15% in
one trading day.
On October 29, 2019, the Company admitted that, following an
investigation by its Audit Committee, it would be restating
Mattel's financial reports for the third quarter 2017 and year-end
2017 and revising its financial reports for its previously issued
2016, 2017, and 2018 annual financial statements, and that the
Company's internal control over financial reporting was not
effective. According to the results of the internal investigation,
Mattel determined that "lapses in judgment by management
contributed to these failures" and announced the resignation of
Defendant CFO Euteneuer.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
resulting decline in the market value of Mattel's stock, the
Plaintiff asserts that it and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company founded in 1945. The Company is headquartered
in El Segundo, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
- and -
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
michaelb@blbglaw.com
METROPOLITAN PROTECTIVE: Rosario Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIREYA ROSARIO, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. METROPOLITAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC, a Florida for
Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20441-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan.
31, 2020), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
In March 2019, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a
non-exempt security guard. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee
for the Defendant, and was paid an hourly wage.
Throughout her employment, the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of
proper overtime wage compensation for her hours worked in excess
for 40 hours each week, says the complaint.
Metropolitan Protective Services was founded in 1997. The Company's
line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored
car services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Staroschak, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: 954-807-7759
Facsimile: 954-807-7781
E-mail: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Sezanayev Suit Over False Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VADIM SEZANAYEV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00565
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that MCM violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by sending false, deceptive, and or
misleading debt collection letter.
Prior to March 13, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter in an attempt to collect alleged debt. The
Plaintiff avers that he was left to believe, as would any least
sophisticated consumer, that had he accepted option 1, 2, or 3,
that he would be receiving a discount on the current balance. As
such, the Defendant's statement was false, deceptive, and or
misleading, and the Defendant's conduct harmed the Plaintiff, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs,
and declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the FDCPA.
MCM was founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes
extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short
periods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
- and -
Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: dan@cml.legal
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Minister to Sue Over Super Bowl 54 Halftime Show
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Axelrod, writing for WKYC Studios, reports that regardless of
which side of the argument you fall on, it's undeniable that
Sunday's (February 2) Super Bowl halftime show was a polarizing
one.
One Ohio man, however, plans on taking his criticism of the
performance a step further than most.
In a video posted to his Facebook page, Dave Daubenmire revealed
his wish to sue the NFL, the show's sponsor, Pepsi and his local
cable provider for the halftime show, which was headlined by
Jennifer Lopez and Shakira. A minister and former high school
football coach, Daubenmire described the halftime show as a "strip
club performance" and said that he was upset that it aired without
properly advising viewers.
"There was no warning. There was no 'caution: under the age of 18'
or 'caution: under the age of 13,'" Daubenmire said. "We were
watching a football game. People tuned in to watch a football game
and what do you know, the next thing you have in front of you?
You've got debauchery. Folks, are we going to protect our children
or not?"
Daubenmire proceeded to take issue with what he described as Lopez
and Shakira's attire, "pole dancing" and "crotch shots."
"Why are they allowed to pump that right into my home without my
approval?" he asked. "Isn't there something out there, contributing
to the delinquency of a minor?
"We're going to continue to get this kind of stuff as long as we
put up with it. I'm looking for a lawyer out there who knows about
-- what do they call those things? Class action lawsuits, where a
group of people says enough is enough."
Daubenmire, who currently lives in Hebron, Ohio, then put out a
plea to have any lawyers interested in representing him call him.
The former head coach of London High School, Daubenmire is no
stranger to the legal system as it relates to the First Amendment.
In 1999, a settlement was reached between the American Civil
Liberties Union and London City Schools after it was found that
Daubenmire's coaching staff breached the separation of church and
state by leading prayers and passing out scriptural verse to
players.
In the days since (February 3) Facebook rant, Daubenmire has gained
no shortage of online attention. That, however, hasn't slowed down
the host of "Coach Dave Live," who told The Daily Caller that he'd
be satisfied with an $867 trillion settlement. [GN]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Clete Andrews, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-00201, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 25,
2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01287 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from claims of personal injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NEW YORK CITY: Class Action Lawsuit Targets Greedy Landlords
------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Vincent, writing for New York Post, reports that New York
City tenants could see a $200 million windfall in back rent as
dozens of lawsuits against greedy landlords make their way through
the courts.
More than 70 class action lawsuits are targeting landlords who
received a city property tax benefit known as J-51 to revamp
residential buildings throughout the five boroughs, but then
destabilized the units and began to charge market rates, says a
housing rights nonprofit that has spearheaded some of the court
actions.
The J-51 tax benefits are only for rent-stabilized buildings. But a
lack of oversight on the part of the city and state allowed
landlords to destabilize the units and charge market rents.
"Tenants are shocked that landlords are receiving benefits and not
giving back affordable housing," said Aaron Carr, founder and
executive director of the Housing Rights Initiative. Carr said his
group has helped launch 55 J-51-related lawsuits since 2016, most
of them benefiting low income and working class families.
Many of the building owners end up settling the lawsuits, with some
tenants splitting back rent windfalls in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars, he said.
But some of the class actions also benefit wealthier tenants,
buoyed by a 2009 state appeals court ruling that said that
residential building owners receiving the tax benefit could not
deregulate any of their apartments.
Current and former tenants at 444 E. 82nd St., are poised to rake
in more than $11.5 million in settlement payments from a
class-action lawsuit against the building's owner, Clermont-York
Associates, LLC, according to a notice from a claims administration
firm mailed out last week. The building's owner is affiliated with
the Feil Group which owns more than $7 billion worth of real estate
across the US.
The multi-million dollar settlement has many landlords crying
foul.
"What's important to understand is that tenants who are bringing
these cases entered voluntarily into their leases and are now
looking for a windfall," said Mitchell Posilkin, chief counsel at
the Rent Stabilization Association which represents thousands of
property owners in New York.
"Rental history for each apartment is unique, and often people
entered into their agreements agreeing to pay market rent. This is
not about low income tenants." [GN]
NEW YORK CITY: Special Education Complaints Spark Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Zimmerman, writing for Bklyner, reports that the city's
special education complaint system is buckling under a glut of
unresolved cases, with delays routinely violating students' civil
rights, according to a new class action lawsuit.
The city and state education departments -- which both have roles
overseeing the complaint system -- have "acted with deliberate or
reckless indifference" to students' rights, says the federal
lawsuit filed Friday, February 14, by the New York Legal Assistance
Group and the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.
Families whose requests for additional services are denied by
schools, or who believe their child's academic setting is
inadequate, have a legal right to file a complaint with the city's
education department, and their cases are required to be resolved
within 75 days.
This can include a case where a student isn't receiving physical
therapy sessions that are listed on her Individualized Education
Program (a legal document known as an IEP), or a case where parents
are seeking tuition reimbursement for a private school because no
public schools offer the required services.
The city faces more than 10,000 open complaints, nearly 70% of
which have blown past the legal deadline for their resolution,
forcing families to wait months or even years before receiving the
special education services they're entitled to, according to the
complaint.
"Despite knowing about these delays for years, the defendants have
failed to repair [the city education department's] severely broken
hearing system," the lawsuit says. "The price for this
dysfunctional system has been paid by New York's most vulnerable
residents."
Filed on behalf of five families who have experienced delays, the
lawsuit represents an escalation from advocates, who have
repeatedly called on city and state officials to take more dramatic
action. But despite those pleas -- and even a state corrective
action plan directed at the city -- there are signs that the
situation has only become more dire.
The city's education department has been inundated with a growing
number of cases with complaints doubling over the past five years.
These challenges are reviewed by an independent hearing officer,
under a process that by law is supposed to take no longer than 75
days from the moment a complaint is filed until a decision is
issued. But the average amount of time it takes to resolve a case
has ballooned to 259 days, a 74% increase since the 2014-15 school
year.
Advocates said the delays are especially hard on low-income
families, who are unable to pay for services out-of-pocket and hope
the city reimburses them later, a common practice among more
affluent families.
"They don't have the money to put up front to get the services, so
they're disadvantaged far worse," said Nelson Mar, Esq., an
attorney at Bronx Legal Services, which represents low-income
families. "The laws are very clear that this process is supposed
to happen quickly. When it doesn't happen, these children are
severely impacted."
Still, even if a family finally makes it to a hearing - and wins -
the education department routinely continues to delay services, a
practice that is the subject of a separate legal complaint.
"Every step in the process really is broken," said Rebecca Shore,
the litigation director for Advocates for Children. [GN]
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Breuer FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Ester Breuer, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location
Services, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-01595 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
csanders@barshaysanders.com
NYCRC LLC: TPBC Sues Over Fraud in GWBBS Development Project
------------------------------------------------------------
TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORP., individually and, as to Count I of the
Complaint, on behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant to
Article 3-A of the N.Y. Lien Law v. NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL CENTER,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00731-UA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020),
arises from an alleged massive and coordinated fraudulent
misconduct relating to the George Washington Bridge Bus Station
development project that resulted from the wrongful receipt of
monies, which funds were allegedly absconded, stolen and/or
otherwise diverted from statutory trust funds.
The Defendants include GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE BUS STATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, LLC; GSNMF SUB-CDE 12 LLC; GSB
NMTC INVESTOR LLC: LIIF SUB-CDE XXVI, LLC; DVCI CDE XIII, LLC; GWB
NMTC INVESTMENT FUND LLC; GWB LEVERAGE LENDER, LLC; GEORGE
WASHINGTON BRIDGE BUS STATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND,
PHASE II, LLC; UPPER MANHATTAN EMPOWERMENT ZONE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; SLAYTON VENTURES, LLC; SLAYTON EQUITIES; SJM PARTNERS,
LLC; SJM PARTNERS INC.; PAUL SLAYTON, an individual, STEPHEN
GARCHIK, an individual; WILLIAM "TREY" BURKE, an individual,
STEPHEN McBRIDE, an individual; and DOES 1-300, inclusive.
The George Washington Bridge Bus Station, which first opened on
January 17, 1963, acts as a transit facility operated by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey (the "Port Authority"). The
station is built over the Trans-Manhattan Expressway (Interstate
95) on property owned in fee by the Port Authority on between 178th
and 179th Streets and Fort Washington and Wadsworth Avenues
(designated on the tax map of the City of New York as Block 2163
Lot 1 and Block 2176 Lot 17) (the "Property").
On June 30, 2011, the Port Authority approved a $183.2 million
renovation and improvement plan for the George Washington Bridge
Bus Station (the Project), which is located on the Property. The
Project was a public private venture between the Port Authority, as
owner of the Property, and non-party George Washington Bridge
Development Venture LLC (the Developer), as ground lessee and
developer/contractor. The Project included relocating the bus
terminals to the third floor of the complex and creating a
state-of-the-art ground transportation hub. The Project also
entailed a new 15,000 square foot bus terminal that increased the
number of gates from 17 to 22. Additionally, 85,000 square feet of
the existing bus station was reconfigured and upgraded. By
relocating the bus station terminal to the third floor of the
complex, a retail center of approximately 129,000 square feet was
created.
According to the complaint, the Developer received Contractor Trust
Funds and Owner Trust Funds in part to compensate the Plaintiff for
construction work performed to improve the Property and the
Project. Monies were supposed to be set aside explicitly for this
purpose, and the Developer even approved the payment applications
by issuing final copies thereof. However, the Developer failed to
make payments thereon. Instead, the Developer made substantial
payments to the Defendants and others, thus, depleting the monies
set aside to compensate the Plaintiff. These were not payments made
for any purpose defined in Lien Law section 71.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Developer depleted the trust money
before paying or discharging all of the trust claims. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendants were aware of the fact that
substantial contractor claims were going unpaid.
TPBC and its affiliates are leading civil and building construction
firms offering diversified general contracting and engineering
services to private clients and public agencies throughout the
world. TPBC has provided construction services since 1894 and has
executed large complex projects throughout the United States.
New York City Regional Center LLC provides commercial services. The
Company offers economic development projects such as job creation,
loans to enterprises, and domestic capital investments in real
estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Nida, Esq.
Gabriel Henriquez, Esq.
NIDA & ROMYN, P.C.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 286-3400
E-mail: rnida@nidaromyn.com
ghenriquez@nidaromyn.com
- and -
Ira M. Schulman, Esq.
Emily D. Anderson, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
620 Eighth Avenue, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10018-1405
Telephone: (212) 808-2718
E-mail: schulmani@pepperlaw.com
andersone@pepperlaw.com
OAK TREE COUNTRY CLUB: Owners Settle Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy Ellis, writing for Oklahoman.com, reports that current and
former owners of Oak Tree Country Club have reached a tentative
settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by wait staff employees
who alleged the owners kept service charge payments that were
intended for them.
The proposed agreement calls for the country club's current and
former owners to pay a combined $125,000, with hundreds of current
and former wait staff and bartenders potentially sharing in some of
the settlement proceeds.
Current owner ClubCorp NV II LLC would pay $95,000 of the
settlement amount and former owner Oak Tree Partners LLC would pay
$30,000.
The agreement will not become final until it is approved by
Oklahoma County District Judge Susan Stallings, who has scheduled a
hearing on the matter for 10 a.m. March 5.
Oak Tree Country Club workers who stand to benefit from the
settlement include banquet servers, banquet captains, bartenders,
beverage cart attendants, captains, servers and lead servers who
were employed there between Jan. 1, 2012, and the date of
settlement hearing approval.
At issue in the lawsuit was who was entitled to receive the
proceeds of mandatory service charges included on restaurant
customers' bills after the wait staff was given a substantial pay
increase in December 2012.
Prior to that time, servers and certain other staff were paid $2.35
an hour and shared in service charge proceeds, according to court
documents. But in December 2012, the base pay of servers was raised
to $10 to $12 an hour and they no longer received money from the
service charge fee. However, servers were allowed to keep any extra
write-in tips or cash tips that they received.
Wait staff argued that it was clear that the 18% service charge was
intended to be a gratuity because some of the bills included a
space for an "Addl Gratuity." They argued that would not have made
sense if the service charge wasn't a gratuity.
The owners countered by contending that wait staff were informed
that the service charge was not a gratuity or tip and that notices
to that effect were included at times in Oak Tree County Club
menus.
Although the owners have signed off on the proposed settlement,
they continue to deny the wait staff's claims.
The attorneys who represented the wait staff, Edward L. White, Esq.
and Chris Harper, Esq., are asking the judge to award them 35% of
the settlement amount off the top to compensate them for their
legal work, plus additional money to pay for their expenses.
Other off-the-top money is being requested for Stanley Musgrave and
Austin Vaughan, two former wait staff employees who filed the
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their fellow workers. In
settlement agreements with current and former owners, the judge is
being asked to award each of them up to $2,500 to compensate them
for their work in the case.
Like their fellow workers, they also would be entitled to receive a
pro rata share of the settlement that would be based on the number
of hours they worked. The tentative settlement includes a special
provision to make sure no wait staff member who shares in the
settlement would receive less than $25.
As part of the proposed settlement, Musgrave and Vaughan are
prohibited from seeking future employment with Oak Tree Partners,
ClubCorp or any of their affiliates, or from disparaging those
companies.
The settlement also bans their attorneys from seeking publicity
regarding the settlement, and says if they are contacted about the
lawsuit, they "will state only that the lawsuit exists and has been
resolved." The attorneys can be required to pay $5,000 in
liquidated damages for each violation of that provision.
Wait staff who stand to benefit from the settlement can opt out if
they want. They also can submit written objections to the
settlement or raise objections in person at the March 5 hearing.
The country club's current and former owners have the option of
backing out of the settlement if more than 10% of the wait staff in
a position to benefit from the agreement choose to opt out,
instead. [GN]
OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Smith Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Smith, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
Oakley Transport Inc., Oakley Transportation Group, Inc. doing
business as: Oakley Transport, Case No. 3:19-cv-05854, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Feb. 24, 2020.
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00417-WFJ-AAS to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as other labor.
Oakley Transport, Inc., provides trucking transportation services.
The Company offers rail transfer and logistic services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 277-7234
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
Email: dbrome@nka.com
helland@nka.com
- and -
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Lotus Cannon, Esq.
Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
James Anthony Eckhart, Esq.
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 637-1777
Fax: (317) 687-2414
Email: ceckhart@scopelitis.com
jeckhart@scopelitis.com
- and -
Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 795-4700
Fax: (626) 795-4790
Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
- and -
Daniel Richard Lyman, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1001
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 852-6910
Fax: (415) 852-6925
Email: daniel.lyman@fordharrison.com
- and -
David Lishian Cheng, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 237-2400
Fax: (213) 237-2401
Email: dcheng@fordharrison.com
- and -
Emily Allison Quillen, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON, & FEARY, P.C.
777 Main Street, Suite 3450
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: (817) 869-1700
Fax: (817) 878-9472
Email: equillen@scopelitis.com
OMNI SPECIALTY: Thiry Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert Thiry, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated v. Omni Specialty Packaging, LLC, O'Reilly
Automotive Stores, Inc. doing business as: O'Reilly Auto Parts,
Ozark Automotive Distributors Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03366, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on Feb. 24, 2020.
The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00132-JTM to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Omni Specialty Packaging, L.L.C. manufactures, markets, and
distributes lubricants and chemicals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan T. White, Esq.
5009 West 114 Street
Leawood, KS 66211
Phone: (913) 338-3891
- and -
Dirk Leon Hubbard, Esq.
Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
HORN AYLWARD & BANDY
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 1100
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 421-0700
Fax: (816) 421-0899
Email: tbender@hab-law.com
- and -
Gene P. Graham, Esq.
William L Carr, Esq.
WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR
19049 E Valley View Parkway, Suite C
Independence, MO 64055
Phone: (816) 373-9080
Fax: (816) 373-9319
Email: ggraham@wgblaw.com
bcarr@wagblaw.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON SCOTT LP
830 Apollo Lane
Houston, TX 77058
Phone: (281) 488-8854
Fax: (281) 488-8867
Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
ON GRID INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY SMITH, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. ON
GRID INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, Case No. 2:20-cv-00058-AWA-RJK (E.D.
Va., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that On Grid failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other workers like him overtime wages, as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Mr. Smith worked for On Grid as a Commissioning Manager, creating
reports and site-specific documentation about progress, completion,
and obstacles. He alleges that On Grid paid him and other workers
the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek.
On Grid provides technical consulting solutions in the water
technologies and power generation industries. On Grid staffs
employees to these industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Harris D. Butler, Esq.
BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@myback wages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Recover Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Streety, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
PARSLEY ENERGY OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00049-DC (W.D.
Tex., Feb. 25, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Parsley as a Drilling Superintendent, and
for the last three years the Plaintiff regularly worked more than
40 hours a week.
The Plaintiff and other workers never received overtime pay for the
hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says
the complaint. Instead of receiving overtime as required by the
FLSA, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and others as
independent contractors and paid these workers a flat amount for
each day worked (a day-rate) without overtime compensation.
Parsley Energy is a Permian-focused independent oil and natural gas
company with an extensive operating history.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PATTERN ENERGY: Arbitrage Fund Challenges Merger With CPPIB
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Arbitrage Fund; Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional
Commingled Fund, LP; Morningstar Alternatives Fund a series of
Morningstar Funds Trust; Litman Gregory Masters Alternative
Strategies Fund; Columbia Multi-Manager Alternative Strategies
Fund; Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund; Water Island
LevArb Fund, LP and Water Island Long/Short Fund, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PATTERN ENERGY
GROUP INC.; ALAN R. BATKIN; EDMUND JOHN PHILIP BROWNE; RICHARD A.
GOODMAN; DOUGLAS G. HALL; PATRICIA M. NEWSON; MONA K. SUTPHEN;
MICHAEL GARLAND and PATTERN ENERGY GROUP 2 LP (d/b/a PATTERN
DEVELOPMENT), Case No. 1:20-cv-00275-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 25, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Pattern Energy
challenging a proposed merger with Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board.
This class action alleges violations by (i) Pattern Energy, (ii)
Pattern Energy's Board of Directors; and (iii) Pattern Energy Group
2 LP of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Board's attempt to merge Pattern Energy with Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board ("CPPIB"), cashing out all of the common stock of
Pattern Energy and delisting Pattern Energy from the NASDAQ.
On February 4, 2020, Pattern Energy filed a Definitive Proxy with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that purported to describe
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 3, 2019,
pursuant to which CPPIB will acquire all of Pattern Energy's common
stock for $26.75 per share. The Proxy also purports to detail the
sales process that resulted in the Merger Agreement, including a
concurrent and related process to sell Pattern Energy's
privately-owned sister company, Pattern Development.
The Proxy purports to disclose the details of CPPIB's acquisition
of the public company, Pattern Energy, without revealing the
details of the sale of the related private company, Pattern
Development. As a result, the Plaintiffs aver, Pattern Energy
shareholders are only given half the story of the sale of these
intertwined companies.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Proxy also omits material details
pertaining to interested parties to the Proposed Transaction and
vital valuation metrics for the deal. This includes the Proxy's
incomplete and misleading information concerning the Company's
financial projections prepared by Pattern Energy management, and
the financial analysis conducted by Pattern Energy's financial
advisor on the deal, Evercore Group L.L.C.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs allege herein that the Defendants
violated the Exchange Act by filing a false and misleading Proxy.
In the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated without
disclosure of the material information, the Plaintiffs seek to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Exchange Act.
The Plaintiffs are owners of shares of Pattern Energy stock
eligible to vote on the Proposed Transaction.
Pattern Energy Group, Inc. is an independent power company focused
on owning and operating power projects with stable long-term cash
flows in attractive markets with potential for continued growth of
our business. The Company owns interests in wind power projects
located in the United States, Canada, and Chile.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10171
Phone: (212) 894-7200
Email: jporter@entwistle-law.com
bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com
- and -
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1370 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 231-1500
Facsimile: (646) 851-0076
Email: ckupka@fksfirm.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Sgarlata Class Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
ruling in the class action suit entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956-EMC, is still
pending.
In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the
operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing
investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform. On
December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise
of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6
million customers.
The company had received a number of governmental inquiries,
including from state attorneys general, and the company may be
subject to additional governmental inquiries and investigations in
the future.
In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956-EMC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and Hamed Shahbazi,
the former chief executive officer of TIO, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The initial compliant alleged that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data
security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities
threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's
revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and
consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO
acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On March 16, 2018,
the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the original plaintiff
who filed the case, as interim co-lead plaintiffs in the case and
appointed two law firms as interim co-lead counsel.
On June 13, 2018, the interim co-lead plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, which named TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA,
Inc., and John Kunze (the Company's Vice President, Global Consumer
Products and Xoom) as additional defendants.
The first amended complaint was purportedly brought on behalf of
all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's
securities between November 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017. The
amended complaint alleged that the Company's and TIO's November 10,
2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's operations was false
and misleading because the announcement only disclosed security
vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than an actual security
breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of at the time of the
announcement.
Defendants' filed their motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint on July 13, 2018 and the Court granted the motion,
without prejudice, on December 13, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on January 14, 2019. The second amended complaint
alleges substantially the same theory of liability as the first
amended complaint, but no longer names Hamed Shabazi as a
defendant.
The remaining Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on March 15, 2019, and a hearing was held on July
16, 2019. The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with
prejudice on September 18, 2019; plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal.
PayPal said, "We may be subject to additional litigation relating
to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO's
operations in the future."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform and digital
payments company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf
of consumers and merchants worldwide. PayPal Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.
PETER NYGARD: Class Action Alleges Rape, Sexual Trafficking
-----------------------------------------------------------
Devika Desai, writing for The National Post, reports that ten
unidentified women have filed a class-action lawsuit accusing
Canadian fashion mogul Peter Nygard of rape and sexual
trafficking.
In a press release on the lawsuit released Thursday, February 13,
the women state that "Nygard lured and enticed young,
impressionable, and often impoverished children and women with cash
payments and false promises of lucrative modelling opportunities in
order to assault, rape, and sodomize them. When the victims were
not swayed by promises, many were drugged to force compliance with
Nygard's sexual desires."
Many of the women were younger than 18 at the time of the alleged
assaults.
Nygard, 77, is the fashion executive, founder and chairman of
Winnipeg-based Nygard International, known for making and selling
women wear.
According to the press release, Nygard would instruct his employees
to "procure" the children and then take them to lavish "pamper
parties", where they were "plied with drugs and alcohol" and then
violently assaulted. In one of the cases, Nygard is alleged to have
brought a 15-year-old girl to his mansion in the Bahamas, where he
attempted to sodomize her, raped her and then asked her to defecate
in his mouth before offering her cash.
Many of the alleged incidents occurred at Nygard's luxury
Mayan-style mansion at Lyford Cay in the Bahamas, according to the
release.
"After hearing these tragic stories, we were compelled to act and
bring a voice to those who have been hurt for so long," said Greg
Gutzler, Esq., one of the lawyers who filed the suit. "We know many
others were afraid to come forward initially and hope that this
lawsuit will pave the way for them to also seek justice.
"The facts in this case represent the tip of the iceberg of an
international sex trafficking ring that ends today."
Ken Frydman, a spokesperson for Nygard, said the accusations in the
class action suit were false. He added that the lawsuit was "just
the latest in a 10-plus year string of attempts to try to destroy
the reputation of a man through false statements" and that it stems
from a dispute between Nygard and his neighbour in the Bahamas,
hedge fund billionaire Louis Bacon.
"The allegations are completely false, without foundation and are
vigorously denied," Frydman told the National Post.
"Peter Nygard looks forward to fully exposing this scam and once
and for all clearing his name."
The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, also mentions several of Nygard's
New York-based corporate entities for their role in "financing,
facilitating and covering up the abuse."
This hasn't been the first time Nygard has been accused of sexual
assault. In the 1990s, he paid to settle three sexual harassment
complaints filed by former employees in Manitoba. Last November,
Tribune 242, a Bahamas newspaper, published that the police were
investigating six allegations of rape made against Nygard. "The
complaint alleges that for years, it has been no secret that Nygard
bribes Bahamian government and police officials and uses
intimidation tactics to coerce silence," reads the press release.
"Sex crimes are widely under-investigated and often swept under the
rug," said Lisa Haba of Haba Law Firm, who also filed the suit.
"With this lawsuit, we aim to give these victims a voice and hold
Mr. Nygard, and his network of accomplices, accountable for their
horrendous conduct. The abuse stops here." [GN]
PEVATOR COMPANIES: Court Decertifies Class in Radford FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES RADFORD, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PEVATOR COMPANIES, LTD. d/b/a/
BRAKE CHECK, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-3381 (S.D. Tex.), Judge
Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, (i) granted Brake Check's
motion to decertify; (ii) granted Brake Check's summary judgment
motion; and (iii) denied Brake Check's motion for sanctions.
The Defendant asks the court to decertify a conditionally certified
collective action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA). Radford, a Brake Check Service Manager,
sued on behalf of himself and other Service Managers, alleging that
Brake Check improperly classified them as exempt from the Act's
overtime compensation requirements. The Court conditionally
certified a class of current and former Service Managers who worked
at Brake Check during the three years before the filing of the
lawsuit. Radford and two of the opt-in plaintiffs, DaJuan Jones
and Michael Murehead, also asserted retaliation claims under the
Act. After representative discovery, Brake Check moved for
decertification, for sanctions against Murehead, for summary
judgment, and for attorneys' fees and costs.
Brake Check is a chain automotive repair shop that does oil
changes, brake work, and alignments. The Plaintiffs are 45 Service
Managers from Brake Check locations throughout Texas. After the
Court permitted discovery as to 10 representative Plaintiffs, Brake
Check designated two individuals from locations in Austin, Corpus
Christi, Houston, Missouri City, and San Antonio as the
representative plaintiffs from whom it wanted discovery. One
representative Plaintiff, Eric Sanchez, withdrew from the case.
Discovery revealed some undisputed facts. Each Service Manager had
the same job description and the same pay schedule. Service
Managers performed a variety of tasks, including making general car
repairs, training new team members, interacting with customers,
managing inventory, and ordering new parts. Service Managers also
assigned tasks to Automotive Technicians; ensured that the
Technicians safely performed their tasks; opened and closed the
stores; and ran the stores when Store or Corporate Directors were
absent. Service Managers are paid $600 per week plus a potential
monthly bonus based on a store's profits.
Brake Check deposed the nine remaining representative Plaintiffs,
plus opt-in Plaintiff Stephen Gordon James and the three Plaintiffs
who asserted retaliation claims under the Act -- Radford, Jones,
and Murehead. Radford deposed Allen Hakes, Brake Check's Vice
President of Operations and corporate representative for the case,
and obtained over 4,000 pages of records from Brake Check.
After the representative discovery, Brake Check moved to decertify
the class, arguing that the class members are not similarly
situated. It also moved for sanctions against Murehead, contending
that his claims should be dismissed with prejudice because he
committed perjury in his Feb. 14, 2019, declaration. Finally,
Brake Check moved for summary judgment, arguing that it properly
classified the Service Managers as exempt from the Act's overtime
requirements and that it fired the three Service Managers asserting
retaliation claims for legitimate reasons.
Based on the disparate testimony and other record evidence, Judge
Rosenthal finds that the individual Plaintiffs' job experiences
were too diverse to sustain a collective action. The Judge also
finds that the Plaintiffs gave different accounts of the amount of
time they spent on different tasks. Without a more homogenous
class, there can be no collective determination on the exemption
defenses Brake Check asserts. Also, the record does not show that
the Plaintiffs are similarly situated enough to continue to proceed
as a collective action. Brake Check's motion to decertify is
granted. The Plaintiffs other than James Radford are dismissed
without prejudice. The case is now an individual action on behalf
of Radford.
Judge Rosenthal also finds that the evidence in the record supports
concluding that Radford was paid a salary of over $455 a week; was
primarily a manager; customarily oversaw at least two other
employees; and had input on the disciplinary process for Automotive
Technicians. Because undisputed record evidence -- including
Radford's own testimony -- shows that the executive exemption
applies, Brake Check's motion for summary judgment on the overtime
claims is granted as to Radford. The Judge need not address the
parties' arguments about the combination exception. Brake Check's
motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims is granted as
to Radford. Murehead's and Jones' claims are dismissed without
prejudice.
Brake Check asks the Court to dismiss all of Murehead's claims with
prejudice based on an allegedly perjured statement Murehead made in
his declaration. It also requests attorneys' fees and costs in
bringing the sanctions motion. Murehead responds that the motion
for sanctions should be denied because he lied in his declaration
to protect a fellow employee; the misstatement does not materially
affect his retaliation claim; and because Murehead was not trying
to deceive the Court.
Judge Rosenthal finds that Murehead's conduct does not demonstrate
"stubborn resistance to authority." Instead, it shows his
misconceptions of the legal process and misplaced concern for his
fellow employee. In his declaration, Murehead stated that he
delayed joining the lawsuit for fear of retaliation. During his
deposition, however, Murehead stated that another Brake Check
employee, Russell Weeks, told him about Flores's statement, not
Brian Smith. The motion for sanctions is denied, the Court rules.
Brake Check is not entitled to attorneys' fees or costs based on
Murehead's conflicting statements or the Plaintiffs' overall
conduct in the case. Fees are awarded when a party has litigated
in bad faith or willfully disobeyed the court, and there is no
evidence of such conduct in the case. The requests for attorneys'
fees and costs in Brake Check's motions for summary judgment and
for sanctions are denied, the Court reiterates.
Judge Rosenthal concludes that after representative discovery and
on the expansive record, the conditionally certified class is not
similarly situated. The Judge granted Brake Check's motion to
decertify and dismissed the opt-in Plaintiffs' claims without
prejudice. The statute of limitations as to the dismissed
Plaintiffs' claims is tolled until Feb. 25, 2020. The Judge
granted Brake Check's summary judgment motion as to Radford.
Finally, the Judge denied Brake Check's motion for sanctions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/OUpoij from Leagle.com.
James Radford, Plaintiff, represented by Tracey Dominique Lewis,
Rosenburg Sprovach & Gregg M. Rosenberg, Rosenberg Sprovach.
Pevator Companies, Ltd., doing business as Brake Check, Defendant,
represented by Mark D. Temple -- mtemple@reedsmith -- Reed Smith.
PNC FINANCIAL: Komorksi Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michael Komorksi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc., Case No. 2020-CH-01060, was removed from the Illinois Circuit
Court for Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Feb. 21, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01265 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is an American bank holding
company and financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
PRIMO WATER: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal With Cott Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PRIMO WATER CORPORATION, BILLY D. PRIM, SUSAN E. CATES,
RICHARD A. BRENNER, JACK C. KILGORE, EMMA BATTLE, MALCOLM
MCQUILKIN, CHARLES NORRIS, DAVID L. WARNOCK, COTT CORPORATON, COTT
HOLDINGS INC., FORE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, and FORE MERGER LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00172-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that
the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
relating to a proposed agreement and plan of merger with Cott
Corporation, Cott Holdings Inc., Fore Merger LLC, and Fore
Acquisition Corporation.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Purchaser
commenced an exchange offer to purchase all of Primo Water's
outstanding common stock for: $14.00 per share in cash; 1.0229
shares of Parent common stock; or $5.04 in cash and 0.6549 shares
of Parent common stock for each share of Primo Water. The Exchange
Offer was set to expire on February 25, 2020.
On January 29, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement.
The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with
irreparable harm.
The Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant, the owner of Primo Water common stock.
Primo Water is North America's leading single source provider of
water dispensers, multi-gallon purified bottled water, and
self-service refill drinking water. The company's dispensers,
exchange, and refill products are available in thousands of retail
locations and online throughout the United States and Canada. The
Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
QUINSTREET INC: Faces Mousa TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
AYMAN MOUSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUINSTREET, INC., d/b/a DEBTHELP.COM and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01136 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 4, 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.
Beginning in July 2018, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in -5624, in an attempt to solicit
the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendants' services. The Defendants
used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place their calls
to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit their services. The Defendants'
calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The
Defendants did also not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an ATDS, says the complaint.
QuinStreet is a publicly traded marketing company based in Foster
City, California. QuinStreet offers performance-based marketing and
search engine marketing services. QuinStreet was founded in 1999,
and has launched or acquired dozens of websites and other media
properties.[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
RAPID RESPONSE: Smith Sues in N.D. New York Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Response
Monitoring Services Incorporated. The case is styled as Stewart
Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Rapid Response Monitoring Services Incorporated, Case No.
5:20-cv-00202-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Rapid Response Monitoring Services Incorporation provides
monitoring and security services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Peluso, Jr., Esq.
DREYER BOYAJIAN LaMARCHE SAFRANKO
75 Columbia Street
Albany, NY 12210
Phone: (518) 463-7784
Fax: (518) 463-4039
Email: jpeluso@dblawny.com
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Saldana FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, LP. The case is styled as Josue Saldana, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01879 (D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Resurgent Capital Services is a manager and servicer of domestic
and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and
debt buyers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
RICHEMONT NORTH: Joye Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIYANNA JOYE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 650722/2020
(N.Y. Sup., Jan. 30, 2020), seeks to recover pursuant to the New
York Labor Law minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt workers employed by the Defendant at
its locations in New York.
The Plaintiff alleges that during many workweeks throughout her
employment, she has been required to work more than 40 hours;
however, the Defendant has failed to include her commission
payments in its calculation of her base rate of pay, resulting in
underpayment of the overtime compensation owed by the Defendant.
Ms. Joye was employed by the Defendant in Central Valley, New York,
as a Sales Associate from May 11, 2008, until July 26, 2019.
Richemont manufactures luxury goods. The Company provides wholesale
distribution of jewelry, precious stones and metals, costume
jewelry, watches, clocks, and silverware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Keniry, Esq.
Thomas R. Fallati, Esq.
TABNER, RYAN AND KENIRY, LLP
18 Corporate Woods Blvd.
Albany, NY 12211
Telephone: (518) 512-5307
- and -
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq.
Robert Dart, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
RICOH USA: Sarabia Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricoh USA, Inc., removed the case captioned as MARIO SARABIA, on
behalf of himself and for all similarly situated persons, and the
general public v. RICOH USA, INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1-50 ALL INCLUSIVE, Case No. 30-2019-01 1 15709-CU-WT-CXC
(Filed Dec. 2, 2019), from the Orange County Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan.
31, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01062 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay unpaid missed rest breaks and missed
meal breaks, and to pay overtime and minimum wages.
Ricoh is a Japanese multinational imaging and electronics
company.[BN]
Defendant Ricoh USA, Inc., is represented by:
Dennis M. Brown, Esq.
Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
Telephone: 408 998 4150
Facsimile: 408 288 5686
E-mail: dmbrown littler.com
mmuraco@littler.com
RING LLC: Smart Home Security Devices Are Unsecured, Politi Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN AND JENNIFER POLITI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01034 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 31, 2020), assert claims against Ring for negligence, breach
of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, breach of privacy, and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's
Legal Remedies Act.
Ring markets smart home security devices, including Wi-Fi enabled
video surveillance cameras and video door bells. Ring's brand is
built on its promise of safety and security for its customers'
homes, telling customers that its products provide "peace of
mind."
According to the complaint, Ring's lax security standards resulted
in third-parties' ability to use the devices to intrude on Ring
customers' home--shattering the promised "peace of mind."
The Plaintiff contends that consumers around the country have
reported unauthorized individuals accessing their Ring devices,
spying on them through the Ring cameras inside their homes, and
harassing them through the microphone function on the Ring devices.
Plaintiffs John and Jennifer Politi were some of those consumers.
In early December 2019, an unauthorized user invaded their home and
privacy through their Ring camera and microphone, leaving them
terrified, the Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages as a result of Ring's failure to properly secure and
safeguard their Ring devices and accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-762-1910
Facsimile: 412-231-0246
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Summary Judgment Bids in Sullivan Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES D. SULLIVAN, LESLIE ADDISON, WILLIAM S. SUMNER,
JR., RONALD S. HAUSTHOR, GORDON GARRISON, LINDA CRAWFORD, TED
CRAWFORD, and BILLY J. KNIGHT, individually, and on behalf of a
Class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAINT-GOBAIN
PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-125
(D. Vt.), Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Vermont denied the parties' motions for summary
judgment.
In the groundwater contamination class action, the Plaintiffs seek
to recover the expense of medical monitoring in future years to
determine whether class members who currently test positive for
exposure to PFOA have contracted an illness or medical condition
associated with exposure to the substance. The Defendant opposes
the claim on several grounds. These include arguments that the
medical monitoring remedy is unavailable under Vermont law and that
it is not supported by the particular facts of the case.
In the course of a pre-trial conference in September 2019, the
Court ordered the parties to complete briefing on the medical
monitoring issue by Nov. 1, 2019, with the Defendant's summary
judgment motion due on the same date. The parties have been
helpful in complying with the request.
The Plaintiffs have filed a timely motion for summary judgment on
the medical monitoring issue. The Defendant has filed a response
as well as its own motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff
filed a response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The Defendant filed a reply.
Judge Crawford holds that the choice between permitting and
excluding a medical monitoring remedy for potential future illness
is a choice between competing values. The jurisdictions which do
not permit the remedy do so on the basis of concerns about
unforeseen economic consequences to the Defendant. The
jurisdictions which allow the remedy value the potential saving of
lives which may be achieved through early detection and treatment.
The cases lie along a continuum from the smokers' cases in which
medical monitoring is consistently denied to cases like Save the
Children and Sadler, in which victims of a catastrophic accident or
negligent health care seek follow-up monitoring for potential
illness. The case falls much closer to the cases in which medical
monitoring has been permitted by the highest courts in other states
because of the presence of an objective test for exposure and the
relatively small, defined class of people who tested positive for
PFOA after consuming water within the affected area. For these
reasons, the Judge anticipates that it is the type of case in which
Vermont decisional law will follow cases permitting proof of the
elements of a medical monitoring remedy.
The Judge turns now to the parties' motions for summary judgment
which seek judgment on the basis of the record evidence before the
court. Applying the familiar summary judgment standard, he begins
with the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs seek a ruling that
they are entitled to the medical monitoring remedy as a matter of
law. The short answer is that they are required to prove their
case at trial. It is hardly an exaggeration to observe that almost
every fact in the case is in dispute. These include the facts
necessary to support a medical monitoring claim.
In addition to its argument that medical monitoring is not
available as a matter of law, the Defendant offers a separate
reason why the facts developed in the case, particularly as they
relate to the medical histories of the named plaintiffs, preclude a
medical monitoring remedy. In its motion for summary judgment, the
Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not adduced any
admissible expert evidence as to the essential element of specific
causation as to any of the named Plaintiffs -- that is, that
exposure to PFOA from the Chemfab facility caused them an increased
risk of adverse health conditions, as opposed to whether it can do
so in general. The Plaintiffs respond that it is their burden to
prove general causation -- but not that Defendant has caused an
identifiable health problem in any individual. They seek medical
monitoring to avoid or reduce exactly that outcome.
Judge Crawford has rejected the Defendant's legal argument that
medical monitoring is unavailable to asymptomatic individuals. The
remaining issues concern the nature of the proof required to prove
causation of increased risk of illness. In addition, the Defendant
seeks to rule out any relief to the named Plaintiffs because they
receive equivalent and sufficient monitoring through their existing
physicians.
At trial, the Court will determine as a matter of law the level of
causation which forms part of the Plaintiffs' burden of proof.
Since general causation appears at this time to be the correct
legal standard, the absence of an expert report on specific
causation of a health risk documented in each Plaintiff's medical
history does not result in summary judgment for the Defendant.
Finally, Judge Crawford agrees with the Plaintiffs. Assuming that
the Plaintiffs meet their burden of proof on general causation,
differences among individual class members are resolved through the
remedy and not by entering partial summary judgment against one
named Plaintiff or another. The simplest example is testing for
conditions limited to one gender such as pregnancy complications.
Any medical monitoring injunction would limit the test to women of
childbearing age. It is unnecessary to enter partial summary
judgment against the male Plaintiffs on the issue.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Crawford denied both motions for
summary judgment. The Judge permitted the Plaintiffs to seek a
medical monitoring remedy at trial.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Decision is available
at https://is.gd/WEcufS from Leagle.com.
John Schraven, Special Master, pro se.
James D. Sullivan, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of
persons similarly situated, Leslie Addison, Individually, and on
behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, William S. Sumner,
Jr., Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, Ronald S. Hausthor, Individually, and on behalf of a
Class of persons similarly situated, Linda Crawford, Individually,
and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, Gordon
Garrison, Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons
similarly situated & Ted Crawford, Individually, and on behalf of a
Class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
David F. Silver, Esq. -- dsilver@barrsternberg.com -- Barr,
Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence & Silver, P.C., Douglas A. Ruley, Davis &
Whitlock, P.C., Emily J. Joselson, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool,
LLP, Gary A. Davis, Esq., Davis & Whitlock, P.C., pro hac vice,
James W. Swift, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, James S.
Whitlock, Esq., Davis & Whitlock, P.C., pro hac vice, Justin G.
Sherman, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP & Rachel B. Strecker,
Esq., Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence & Silver, P.C.
Billy J. Knight, individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emily J. Joselson,
Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, James W. Swift, Esq., Langrock
Sperry & Wool, LLP, James S. Whitlock, Esq., Davis & Whitlock,
P.C., Justin G. Sherman, Esq., Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP & Rachel
B. Strecker, Esq., Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence & Silver, P.C.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Bert Wolff, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, David
Weinraub, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas E. Fleming, III,
Esq. -- douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac
vice, Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq. -- lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com --
Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Marina Schwarz, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro
hac vice, Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com --
Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Paul A. LaFata, Esq. --
paullafata@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel
Passaretti-Wu, Esq. -- rachelpassarettiwu@quinnemanuel.com --
Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. --
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice,
Stephen N. Williams, Esq., Dechert LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy C.
Doherty, Jr., Esq., Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC.
SANMEDICA INT'L: Bid to Change Venue in Pizana False Ad Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAUL PIZANA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied
SanMedica's motions to change venue and stay the action.
Pizana filed the putative class action on May 9, 2018, challenging
the advertising and efficacy of SeroVital-hgh, a purported Human
Growth Hormone ("HGH") supplement purchased by him in early 2017.
The Product was produced by the Defendant, a Utah-headquartered
corporation.
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on Nov. 13, 2019, asserts three
causes of action: 1) a violation of California Civil Code Section
1750, et. seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); 2) a
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500,
et. seq., the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and 3) a violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq., the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
The crux of the Plaintiff's suit is that the Defendant's Product,
despite being marketed as an HGH supplement that can make users
look and feel decades -- not years, but decades -- younger, is no
more effective for its advertised purposes than a placebo and is
therefore worthless to California consumers.
On June 5, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to change venue to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
which thie Court denied on Sept. 30, 2019. It now moves again for
a change of venue, this time to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah. The Defendant also moves to stay the action
pending resolution of the motion to change venue. The Plaintiff
filed his oppositions to both motions on Jan. 8, 2020, and the
Defendant filed its replies on Jan. 15, 2020.
The Defendant moves to change venue, arguing that the filing of
Diebler v. SanMedica Int'l LLC, a nearly identical class action
lawsuit against the Defendant in the District of New Jersey by the
same attorneys and firms in the present case makes litigating both
cases on distant coasts, inconvenient, inefficient, and contrary to
judicial economy. The solution, according to the Defendant, is to
transfer the action to the District of Utah.
Because the Plaintiff does not contest that venue would be proper
in the District of Utah, Judge Drozd focuses on the convenience and
fairness inquiry.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's choice of forum
deserves little weight, given that the case is a class action where
most of the class Plaintiff seeks to represent resides outside of
the forum and that the Plaintiff's counsel has now chosen to
litigate these issues in two separate forums.
Judge Drozd concludes that the Plaintiff's choice of the Eastern
District as forum for the action deserves at least some deference,
weighing against transfer to the District of Utah. He finds that
because the Defendant seeks a change of venue to the District of
Utah, the third factor, whether the Plaintiff's claims are based on
the state law of his chosen district, now also weighs against
transfer. Moreover, the fact that the Plaintiff's counsel
participated in the filing of the action in Diebler does not
invalidate his choice of forum in the case and has little bearing
on whether this case should be transferred to the District of
Utah.
Next, Judge Drozd holds that the Defendant's lack of detail in
support of its motion leaves him to speculate about the potential
inconveniences that the Defendant's Utah-based witnesses might face
versus the concrete inconveniences specifically identified by the
Plaintiff. He therefore concludes that the convenience of the
parties and witnesses weighs against a change of venue to the
District of Utah.
Given the fact that the Paintiff's physical evidence is also
located in California, Judge Drozd concludes that the Defendant has
not shown that transfer would eliminate, rather than shift, the
inconvenience of costs. Therefore, the location of the sources of
proof for the case is at best neutral with respect to transfer.
The Defendant contends that, in the interest of justice, factors
such as: 1) the ability of process to compel attendance of
unwilling witnesses and the cost of obtaining willing witnesses;
and 2) the risk of inconsistent rulings and the burden on judicial
resources due to concurrent proceedings here and in the District of
New Jersey favor transfer to the District of Utah.
Judge Drozd holds that neither argument is availing. First, the
Defendant has failed to show that transfer would eliminate, rather
than shift, the inconvenience of costs. Indeed, transfer to the
District of Utah could possibly remove witnesses from reach of the
court's subpoena power. Thus, the availability of witnesses weighs
against a change of venue to the District of Utah. Second, the
purported risk of inconsistent rulings and the burden on judicial
resources weigh strongly against transfer to the District of Utah.
The fact that a corporation makes decisions at its headquarters in
another district does not negate the local impact of those
decisions when they are implemented elsewhere. Judge Drozd must
also consider the fact that the Plaintiff filed the case in the
same district where he was exposed to the Defendant's marketing and
where he purchased the Product, as these too are operative facts.
Weighing the relative importance of both locations, Judge Drozd
concludes that consideration of this factor weighs only slightly in
favor of transfer to the District of Utah.
Taking into account all of the factors analyzed, Judge Drozd
concludes that Defendant has failed to justify transfer of the case
to the District of Utah. Therefore, he denied the Defendant's
motion to transfer.
The Defendant has requested a stay pending of the action resolution
of the motion to change venue. Because the order resolves the
motion to change venue, the Defendant's request for a stay is
denied as moot.
The Defendant is directed to seek leave of the Court before filing
any future motion to change venue in the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EORQ3P from Leagle.com.
Raul Pizana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shireen M. Clarkson -
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com - Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., Annick
Marie Persinger -apersinger@tzlegal.com - Tycko & Zavareei,
Matthew
Theriault - mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com - Clarkson Law Firm,
P.C. & Ryan Jack Clarkson - rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -
Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.
Sanmedica International LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher
B. Sullivan , Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice, David R.
Parkinson , Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason Kerr
, Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice, John Joseph
Fitzgerald, IV , Law Office of John Fitzgerald, PC, Ronald F.
Price
, Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, pro hac vice & Steven W. Garff ,
Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, 5742 West Harold Gatty Drive Salt
Lake City, Utah 84116.
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Melillo Suit Moved From New York to Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Yesenia Melillo, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi
US Services Inc., Chattem Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-06376, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Feb. 21, 2020.
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80250-RLR to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. Areas that Sanofi US cover include
cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments, and
metabolic disorders.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher M. Strongosky, Esq.
DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1104
Phone: ((212) 835-6243
Fax: 884-8543
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Scholl Suit Moved From Minn. to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Scholl, Ryan Dahl, Brad Hoag, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc., Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 0:19-cv-03044, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Feb. 24, 2020.
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80269-RLR to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products. Areas that Sanofi US cover include
cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments, and
metabolic disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Email: awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
608 Second Avenue South
725 Northstar East
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Fax: (612) 339-6622
Email: etaubel@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-8282
Fax: 496-6611
Email: phoward@smbb.com
sparis@smbb.com
- and -
Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: 339-0981
Email: ymflaherty@locklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Cheryl A. Sabnis, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 318-1200
Fax: (415) 318-1300
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Chatman Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Renee Chatman, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US
Services Inc., Chattem Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01363, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Feb. 24, 2020.
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80265-RLR to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products. Areas that Sanofi US cover include
cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments, and
metabolic disorders.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julia Zousmer, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
353 N. Clark Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 995-6333
Email: jzousmer@kslaw.com
SAVE-A-LOT HOLDINGS: Mislabels Truli Vanilla Drinks, Swantek Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Swantek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Save-A-Lot Holdings, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-00894
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to
accurately indicate on the front label that its vanilla-flavored
almondmilk beverages contained flavor from non-vanilla sources.
Save-A-Lot manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
almondmilk beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla
under the Truli brand (Products). The Products are available to
consumers from Defendant's almost 1,300 Save A Lot grocery stores
across the country and are sold in cartons of 64 OZ (1.89L).
The Plaintiff contends that the representations are misleading
because the Product does not contain the amount, type, strength of
vanilla with respect to other flavoring components. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the Products because it
knows consumers prefer foods that are flavored from food
ingredients instead of added flavor ingredients and that contain
enough of the characterizing food ingredients to flavor the
Products. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant's intent was to
secure economic advantage in the marketplace against competitors by
appealing to consumers, who value products with sufficient amounts
of the characterizing ingredients.
The Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the
Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering
damages, says the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Ave.
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
SHANTA'S BAKERY: Dario Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ubalda Yahuitl Dario, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SHANTA'S BAKERY AND RESTAURANT INC.
d/b/a 3 SISTERS' & SHANTA'S RESTAURANT & BAKERY, and LILOUTIE
SINGH, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-01031 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25,
2020), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws.
The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage rate of
one and a half times the regular wage, to which the Plaintiff was
entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in August 2017 until
August 2019.
SHANTA'S BAKERY AND RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a 3 SISTERS' & SHANTA'S
RESTAURANT & BAKERY, is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with a principal executive office in Richmond Hill, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Smith Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., THOMAS C. GENTILE
III, JOSE GARCIA, and JOHN GILSON, Case No. 4:20-cv-00077-CVE-JFJ
(N.D. Okla., Feb. 24, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 that resulted in the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Spirit securities between October 31, 2019, and January
29, 2020, both dates inclusive.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Plaintiff
asserts, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Spirit lacked effective
internal controls over financial reporting; (ii) Spirit did not
comply with its established accounting principles related to
potential contingent liabilities; and (iii) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about Spirit's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On January 30, 2020, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that Spirit had determined that it did not
comply with its accounting procedures and that Defendants Garcia
and Gilson had resigned. On this news, Spirit's stock price fell
$2.56 per share, or 3.78%, to close at $65.08 per share on January
30, 2020.
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 acquired Spirit securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Spirit designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero
structures in the U.S. and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
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
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
SUN VALLEY: Pineda Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Valley Packing, L.P., removed the case captioned as LETICIA
PINEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
SUN VALLEY PACKING, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
19CECG03846 (Filed on Oct. 23, 2019), from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Fresno to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on
Jan. 31, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00169-DAD-EPG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.
Sun Valley is family owned farming operation delivering farm-fresh,
and ready-to-eat fruits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Bollinger, ESq.
MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
15300 Ventura Blvd., Suite 207
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (310) 982-2984
Facsimile: (818) 963-5954
E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com
Sun Valley Packing is represented by:
Thomas Elmer Campagne, Esq.
CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
Airport Office Center
1685 North Helm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
Telephone: (559) 255-1637
Facsimile: (559) 252-9617
E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Scarantino Objects Proposed Sale to Blackstone
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TALLGRASS ENERGY, LP, WILLIAM R. MOLER,
TERRANCE D. TOWNER, ROY N. COOK, THOMAS A. GERKE, MARCELINO OREJA
ARBURUA, GUY G. BUCKLEY, WALLACE C. HENDERSON, and MATTHEW J.K.
RUNKLE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00159-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 31, 2020), is
brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 stemming from a
proposed transaction pursuant to which Tallgrass will be acquired
by affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners, Enagas, GIC,
NPS, and USS--the Sponsors.
Tallgrass is a growth-oriented midstream energy infrastructure
company operating across 11 states with transportation, storage,
terminal, water, gathering and processing assets that serve some of
the nation's most prolific crude oil and natural gas basins.
Sponsor Enagas is a Spanish energy company. GIC, formerly known as
Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, is a sovereign
wealth fund established by the Government of Singapore in 1981 to
manage Singapore's foreign reserves. NPS is a public pension fund
in South Korea. NPS is the third largest in the world with $600
billion in assets, and is the largest investor in South Korea. USS
is the corporate trustee of one of the largest private sector
pension funds in the UK. The Sponsors currently hold approximately
44 percent of the total Class A and Class B shares of the Company.
On December 16, 2019, the Board of Directors of Tallgrass Energy,
LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the "Partnership"), caused the
Partnership to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Tallgrass Energy GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
the general partner of the Partnership ("TGE GP"); Prairie Private
Acquiror LP; and Prairie Merger Sub LLC. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, Tallgrass' Class A stockholders will receive
$22.45 in cash for each share of Tallgrass Class A common stock
they own.
On January 21, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.
According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Partnership's financial projections;
fails to disclose the August 6, 2019 financial projections; and
fails to disclose the nature of the shareholder communications
regarding the Proposed Transaction received by Tallgrass between
September and December 2019.
The Plaintiff contends that the omissions and false and misleading
statements in the Proxy Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction. In addition, a reasonable investor will
view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly altering the
total mix of information made available in the Proxy Statement and
in other information reasonably available to stockholders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
THERMON GROUP: Faces Class Suit in Quebec of THS Heating Elements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
has received service of process in a class action application in
the Province of Quebec, Canada related to certain heating elements
previously manufactured by Thermon Heating Systems, Inc. (THS) and
incorporated into portable construction heaters sold by certain
manufacturers.
The Company received service of process in January 2020.
The Company believes this claim is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the claim. The Company continues
to evaluate the facts and circumstances of this claim; however, due
to the current uncertainty of the basis for the claim, the Company
is unable to establish an amount of an accrual for this claim at
this time.
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. provides highly engineered thermal
solutions for process industries. The Company is a global leader
and one of the few thermal solutions providers with a global
footprint and a full suite of products (heating cables, tubing
bundles and control systems) and services (design optimization,
engineering, installation and maintenance services) required to
deliver comprehensive solutions to complex projects.
TIVITY HEALTH: Faces Strougo Suit Over Decline in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Strougo, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., DONATO TRAMUTO, and ADAM C.
HOLLAND, Case No. 3:20-cv-0016 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 25, 2020), seeks
to recover damages from the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws relating to the recent disclosure of
the operational challenges faced by Tivity's Nutrition segment
following the acquisition of Nutrisystem, Inc.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Tivity securities between March 8, 2019, and February 19,
2020, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In December 2018, Tivity announced that it would acquire
Nutrisystem, Inc., a provider of weight management products and
services. On March 8, 2019, Tivity announced the completion of the
Nutrisystem Acquisition for approximately $1.3 billion in cash and
stock.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
following the Nutrisystem Acquisition, Tivity's Nutrition segment
faced significant operational challenges; (ii) the foregoing would
foreseeably have a significant impact on Tivity's revenues; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 19, 2020, Tivity issued a press release announcing the
Company's financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended
December 31, 2019. Tivity disclosed, inter alia, that its
"Nutrition segment had a disappointing end to 2019," which included
"a non-cash impairment charge of $(377.1) million," contributing to
a net loss for the Company of $272.8 million in the fourth quarter.
Concurrently, Tivity announced the resignation of the Company's
Chief Executive Officer. Discussing the Company's financial results
on an earnings call, the Company's interim CEO, Robert Greczyn,
stated that "admittedly, the nutrition business has not worked out
as well as planned since the completion of the Nutrisystem
Acquisition in March 2019."
On this news, Tivity's stock price fell $10.43 per share, or
45.49%, to close at $12.50 per share on February 20, 2020.
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 acquired Tivity securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Tivity provides fitness and health improvement programs in the
United States. The Company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc.
and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
P. O. Box 150734
Nashville, TN 37215
Phone: 615.248.2828
Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Gustavo F. Bruckner, 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
gfbruckner@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
TYLER MEMORY: Hawkins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Hawkins, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TYLER MEMORY CARE PROPERTIES, LLC DBA OAK HILLS TERRACE
MEMORY CARE, Case No. 6:20-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs
and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime rate
for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, but were not paid time and one-half their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, while they were working for the Defendant, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Hawkins works exclusively for Tyler Memory Care as a med
tech from May 13, 2019, to present.
Tyler Memory Care is a company offering residential memory
care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
HOMMEL LAW FIRM
5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
Tyler, TX 75703
Phone: 903-596-7100
Facsimile: 469-533-1618
UGI CORP: Agreement Reached in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company has
reached an agreement to resolve the claims of direct purchasers of
propane cylinders.
Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits
were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers.
The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to
reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds
to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws.
The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative classes.
On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Missouri District Court.
As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings,
including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct
customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect
customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District
Court.
The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the
federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was
upheld by the Eighth Circuit.
On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that
it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims
and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue
those claims. On August 21, 2019, the District Court partially
granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
dismissed the claims of indirect customer plaintiffs from ten
states and the District of Columbia.
On October 2, 2019, the Company reached an agreement to resolve the
claims of the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs, subject to
court approval.
UGI said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of these
pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation
with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have
a material effect on our financial statements."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay JSA Benefits Under ERISA, Brown Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Brown, Ronnie Suveg, and Joseph Bobertz on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. United Parcel
Service of America, Inc., the Administrative Committee of the UPS
Retirement Plan, the Administrative Committee of the UPS Pension
Plan, and John/Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 1:20-cv-00460-MLB (N.D.
Ga., Jan. 31, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
benefits in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to a single
life annuity to participants and beneficiaries receiving a joint
and survivor annuity, as required by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
By not offering JSAs that are actuarially equivalent to the single
life annuities that participants earn under the UPS Retirement Plan
(Retirement Plan) and the UPS Pension Plan (Pension Plan), the
Defendants are causing retirees to lose part of their vested
retirement benefits in violation of ERISA, says the complaint.
UPS is one of the largest employers in the United States and
sponsors several defined benefit pension plans for its employees.
Under the Plans, participants earn retirement benefits in the form
of a single life annuity (SLA), or a monthly payment for the rest
of their lives when they retire.
Participants in the Plans may choose to receive their benefits in
forms other than an SLA, including a JSA, which provides an annuity
during the participant's life and then a percentage of that amount
to the participant's beneficiary after the participant's death
(available in 50%, 75%, or 100% amounts).
United Parcel Service is an American multinational package delivery
and supply chain management company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Worley, Esq.
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
jim@ewlawllc.com
kristi@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
mkindall@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
Alexandra S. Serber, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 fax
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
mboyko@baileyglasser.com
UNITED STATES: Texas Northern Dist. Dismisses w/o Prejudice Valle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, dismissed without prejudice the
case, RENE FLORES VALLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:19-CV-2254-L (N.D. Tex.), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Before the court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed Sept. 26, 2019.
On Oct. 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court dismiss the action
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs challenge and seek judicial review of the policy of
the Department of Homeland Security Policy that it will no longer
produce detained immigrants to immigration court to attend their
removal proceedings in person. Instead, removal proceedings for
detained immigrants would be conducted exclusively over video
teleconference ("VTC").
The Magistrate Judge determined that the court does not have
jurisdiction over this action because the Plaintiffs seek judicial
review of "part of the process by which removability is
determined," and pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(b)(9), such
judicial review is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. The
Magistrate Judge further determined that the Plaintiffs' challenge
to the exclusive use of VTC in removal proceedings remains
available under Section 1252(b)(9)'s channeling rule.
On Oct. 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Objections to
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
In their Objections, the Plaintiffs' main contention is that the
Magistrate Judge mischaracterized the agency action as an action
that arises from their removal proceedings where their challenge to
the DHS Policy is actually independent of, and collateral to their
removal proceedings.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that their challenge is beyond
the scope of claims barred under Secton 1252(b)(9), and due to
their inability to raise their claim efficaciously within the
administrative proceedings, their claim is exempt from the
exhaustion requirement under Section 1252(d)(1). Thus, according to
the Plaintiffs, the Court is the appropriate forum to challenge the
DHS Policy.
On Nov. 5, 2019, the Defendants filed their response to the
Plaintiffs' Objections and asserted that the Magistrate Judge's
Report was correct in the determination that the action arises from
removal proceedings, and, thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain this action. Specifically, they assert that Congress has
established a judicial review framework for removal proceedings
under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(5) & (b)(9), which permits the
Plaintiffs to challenge the use of VTC by filing a petition for
review in the appropriate court of appeals once the Board of
Immigration Appeals ("BIA") issues a final order. They further
assert that the Fifth Circuit has considered the use of VTC in
removal proceedings in the context of petitions for review of
decisions of the BIA. Thus, according to the Defendants, the Court
should accept the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss the
action because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the
court has jurisdiction over their claims.
Judge Lindsay determines that the action arises from removal
proceedings. Accordingly, Judge Lindsay overrules the Plaintiff's
objection that the Magistrate Judge mischaracterized the action as
one "arising from" removal proceedings. Contrary to the
Plaintiffs' assertions, the Magistrate Judge did not misinterpret
the phrase "arising from" differently in Sections 1252(b)(9) and
(g). Instead, the Court determines that he properly applied the
teachings in Jennings by reasonably interpreting "arising from" in
Section 1252(b)(9) to include an action taken or proceeding in
which a Plaintiff (1) seeks review of an order of removal; (2)
challenges a decision to detain or remove the plaintiff; or (3)
challenges any part of the process by which the Plaintiff's
removability will be determined. Judge Lindsay arrives at the same
conclusion expressed by the Magistrate Judge.
Judge Lindsay also determines that the Plaintiffs' argument that
Section 1252(b)(9) does not foreclose judicial review of claims
that cannot be raised efficaciously within the administrative
proceedings already available is misplaced, and, accordingly,
overrules the objection. Judge Lindsay finds that the Plaintiffs'
unwillingness to follow the statutory scheme and designated
administrative process is an insufficient basis to circumvent the
system in place.
Finally, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief pursuant to the
federal Declaratory Judgment Act. To the extent they rely on the
Act to confer subject matter jurisdiction in the Court, such
reliance is misplaced. Judge Lindsay holds that is well settled
that Section 2201 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on a
federal court where none otherwise exists. Judge Lindsay has
determined that no other basis for jurisdiction in the Court
exists, and, thus, the Plaintiffs cannot establish jurisdiction on
the sole basis of Section 2201.
Having reviewed the record in the case, the Report, and applicable
law, and, having conducted a de novo review of the portions of the
Report to which objections were made, Judge Lindsay determines that
the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct
and accepts them as those of the Court as supplemented by his
Opinion. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the action and dismissed it without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of Judge Lindsay's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum Order
& Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Qb9cNn from Leagle.com.
Rene Flores Valle & Luis Alberto Tiscareno, Plaintiffs, represented
by John Michael Bray -- john@oblawfirm.com -- The Law Office of
John M. Bray, PLLC.
Oludayo Oluwapelumi Okunowo, ELL & LCM, Individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christy
Meshel White -- cmw@meshellawgroup.com -- Meshel Law Group, PLLC.
US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration & Customs
Enforcement, US Department of Justice, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, in official capacity, Matthew T Albence, Acting director
of ICE, in official capacity, William P Barr, US Attorney General,
in official capacity, James McHenry, Director of EOIR, in official
capacity & Simona Flores, Director of Dallas Field Office of ICE,
in official capacity, Defendants, represented by Brian Walters
Stoltz, U.S. Attorney's Office.
VCI CONSTRUCTION: Faces Olivas Employment Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VCI CONSTRUCTION,
LLC. The case is styled as Juan Olivas, Tanner Young, individually
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorney's General Act v. VCI CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, Case No. BCV-20-100512 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty.,
Feb. 21, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment--Civil Unlimited".
VCI Construction is a full service contractor serving construction
and engineering need for telecom, wireless and utility
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
DOUGLAS HAN, ESQ.
VERTILUX LIMITED: Suros FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mercedes Suros, and all others similarly
situated v. VERTILUX LIMITED, VERTILUX MANAGEMENT, INC., JOSE
GARCIA and BERNARDO MENDEZ, Case No. 2019-037833-CA-01, was removed
from the Florida Circuit Court, in and for Miami-Dade County, to
the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb.
24, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-20781-BB to the
proceeding.
The civil action purports to arise under federal law, since the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alberto Naranjo, Esq.
AN LAW FIRM, P.A.
7900 Oak Lane #400
Miami Lakes, FL 33016
Phone: 305-942-8070
Email: AN@ANlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jose I. Leon, Esq
GORDON & REES
100 SE Second Street, Suite 3900
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-428-5322
Facsimile: 877-644-6209
Email: jleon@gordonrees.com
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Faces Mabry FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Shayla Mabry, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00466-NYW (D. Colo., Feb. 21,
2020).
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Wakefield & Associates Inc. was founded in 1982. The Company's line
of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims
and other insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
WECOMPETE INC: Faces Weisberg Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WEISBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WECOMPETE INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01026 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by
placing unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA and
related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
The Plaintiff received in March 2019 unsolicited text message from
the Defendants on his cellular telephone, number ending in -7924.
The Plaintiff was never a customer of the Defendants' and never
provided his cellular telephone number to the Defendants for any
reason whatsoever. Accordingly, the Defendants never received the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text
messages, says the complaint.
WeCompete offers multiple loan option for small 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
WEST 4TH STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Santos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Santos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WEST 4TH STREET REST. CORP., d/b/a WASHINGTON SQUARE
DINER, Case No. 7:20-cv-01664 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant to recover damages arising from the
Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Although the Plaintiff worked for 54 hours or more per week during
his employment by the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay him time
and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in October 2018 until
November 2019.
WEST 4TH STREET REST. CORP., d/b/a WASHINGTON SQUARE DINER, is a
corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal
executive office in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
WESTGATE RESORTS: Faces Stewart TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WESTGATE RESORTS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01083 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 3, 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.
Beginning Nov. 2019, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in -6357, in an attempt to solicit
the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendants' services.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place their calls to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit their services. The Defendants' calls
constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The
Defendants did also not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an ATDS, says the complaint.
Westgate Resorts is an American timeshare resort company founded by
David A. Siegel in 1982. The Company first expanded from Central
Florida to Miami and Daytona Beach.[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
WESTPAC BANKING: Clients Fear Setback in Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Chung, writing for Herald Sun, reports that Westpac clients
who were ripped off with excessive life insurance premiums fear
they may never get their money back after a shock High Court ruling
threw a spanner in the works of their legal case.
The class action, which dates all the way back to 2017 in the
quaint pre-Royal Commission days, alleges that Westpac charged its
own customers more for identical policies they could have purchased
more cheaply from independent financial advisers.
It also alleged that Westpac financial advisers, including those at
subsidiaries St George Bank, Bank of Melbourne, BankSA and BT
Advice, did not offer the best policies from other insurers to
customers, instead pushing Westpac Life products.
Shine Lawyers, which is running the case, estimates there are some
88,000 affected customers dating back to February 2011, with a
potential $100 million in refunds owed.
"I feel that I was cheated and duped, basically so Westpac could
have a quick cash-grab," said lead plaintiff Greg Lenthall.
Mr. Lenthall, 60, was on a low income working as a cook in 2012
when he was signed up for a life insurance policy by an adviser at
his local Westpac branch.
He says he believed the adviser would give him a "good deal" and
that he put "a lot of faith in the local bank branch to give the
best policy and best advice".
The premiums ultimately worked out to nearly one third of his
monthly income. "It was approximately $400 a month," he said. "I
was on about $720 a fortnight at the time."
Working long hours, Mr Lenthall didn't "scrutinise everything
fortnightly or monthly" and wound up with a "shock at the end of
the year when you realise you've been charged thousands of dollars
in fees".
"I think it possibly would have been considerably less (if I had
searched around) for different life insurance brokers," he said. "I
would have got a much better deal."
Townsville woman Deborah Carter, 53, was paying nearly $1000 a
month for two policies -- TPD and income protection -- until she
cancelled when she sold her business in 2015.
Unaware that there were two policy numbers, it "took about a year"
for her to realise Westpac was still taking $318 a month out of her
account for income protection.
The wildlife rescue worker said she only paid the "hefty premiums"
because she had assumed the Westpac financial adviser was "looking
after me". "I didn't go there looking for the policy, they
suggested it," she said.
"I'd gone to talk about my mortgage. I didn't shop around because
they were my bank, I had all my loans with them. I mean, you're
meant to be able to trust your bank, especially if you've got the
bulk of your mortgages and payments with them. Aren't they the
people who should be looking out for you?"
In December, the High Court delivered a major blow to the Westpac
case -- and the broader class actions industry -- by overturning a
rule that allowed funders of class actions to collect a share from
everyone affected.
The High Court ruling on so-called "common fund orders" means law
firms have to go back to the old-fashioned way of doing things
before 2016, searching out and signing up potential affected
clients to take part before commencing the class action.
Common fund orders effectively made it easier for class actions to
go ahead, because it gave the litigation funders certainty that
they would get their cut from any payment resulting from the claim,
even though there is no direct contract between the customer and
the funder.
Litigation funder JustKapital is "considering the financial
viability of continuing to fund this case as it is concerned that,
given the High Court's decision, it will not be able to recover the
substantial costs it has already incurred and earn a return", Shine
Lawyers informed its clients last month.
"Following the decision, we said there's the possibility the case
might not be capable of being progressed unless we can get people
to sign up with you," said Shine Lawyers head of class actions Jan
Saddler.
Ms. Saddler said she didn't want to "put a number on it . . . but
the idea is to get as many people as possible".
"As the lead applicant, Greg is really wanting to rally the other
88,000 people like him," she said.
Mr. Lenthall said he hopes enough Westpac customers will come
forward so the class action can go ahead. "That would end up
putting some money back in my pocket," he said.
Ms. Carter isn't looking for a "big payout", just a reimbursement
of the several thousand dollars she mistakenly paid, and which
Westpac refused to refund her.
"They're getting away with blue murder," she said. [GN]
WW NORTH AMERICA: Newman Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cindy Newman, an individual, individually, on
behalf of the general public, and all others similarly situated v.
WW NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV02332, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Feb. 24, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01770 to the
proceeding.
The complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) failure to pay
compensation for all hours worked and minimum wage; (2) failure to
pay overtime compensation; (3) derivative waiting time penalties;
(4) failure to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period; (5)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6)
violation of the California Business and Professions code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
samuel.sadeghi@morganlewis.com
YOUNG MEN'S: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Brown Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN BROWN, individually, and on behalf of other members 0f the
general public similarly situated v. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION OF SILICON VALLEY, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV362508 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated
the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest
periods, and to pay overtime and minimum wages.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew or should have
known that the Plaintiff and class members were entitled to meal
periods in accordance with the Labor Code or payment of one
additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they were
not provided with timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal periods.
The Plaintiff is an hourly paid, non-exempt Lifeguard from 2014 to
November 2019. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants in San Jose and Cupertino, California.
Founded in 1867, the Defendants operate a youth organization in
Silicon Valley, with ten health and wellness facilities throughout
Silicon Valley.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Drexler, Esq.
Molly DeSario, Esq.
Jonathan Lee, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
Molly.DeSario@CapstoneLawyers.com
Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 4th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 4th.
Sponsorship opportunities are currently available.
Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class
action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers,
consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics.
For sponsorship options and details, contact Colin Post at
colin@beardgroup.com
Visit the conference website: http://bit.ly/2RlIHvo
*********
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 ***