/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200306.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 48
Headlines
AARON'S INC: Stein Sues Over False Reports That Inflated Prices
ABC PHONES: Hardney Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Settlement Takes Effect
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Marshall Individual Claims Dismissed in Wilson
AMERICO FINANCIAL: Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Hancock Suit
AMP: Shine Lawyers to File Class Action Over Insurance Premiums
ANEJO GROUP: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Tip Credit
APPLE INC: Employees File Class Action for Unpaid Security Checks
APPSOLUTELY MEDIA: Schaffer Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
AT&T INC: Loses Key Ruling in Unlimited-Data Throttling Case
B.C. LOTTERY: Promoting Dangerous Video Slot, Says Class Action
BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Salish Suit with Prejudice
BEYOND MEAT: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 30 Deadline
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Espinal Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BRIGANTINE INC: Sandoval Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Class Suit Certification Expected in 6-8 Weeks
CH ROBINSON: Growers File $1.1-Bil. Class Action
CINTAS CORP: Says Securities Class Action Suit Has No Merit
CJS SOLUTIONS: Bid to Cond. Certify Class in Vallone Partly Granted
COLLINS ASSET: Thaxton Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Jairam Files Suit in Florida
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Doe Suit Over Hadden's Sexual Abuses
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S: Certification of Trainees Class Sought
CRAFT BREW: Sabatini Files Suit Over Sale to Anheuser-Busch
CRAIN CONCRETE: Garcia et al. Seek OT Pay for General Laborers
D & A SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in Voeks Suit Shelved
DAIRYLAND USA: Denied Bevel Overtime, Meal Breaks, Paystubs
DBI SERVICES: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Paid Technicians
EASTLAND MALL: Mall Staff Hit Unpaid Overtime, Missing Paystubs
ECLIPSE SENIOR: Taylor Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
EDWARD ZENGEL: Olker Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Settlement Approval to Face Opposition
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rabinowitv Disputes Credit Report
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses Ruling
EVENFLO CO: Lieff Cabraser Files Class Suit Over Booster Car Seats
EVONIK CORP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA, Silva Claims
FEDCAP REHABILITATION: King Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
FRANCHISE WORLD: Bittner Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
FRESH EXPRESS INC: Brady Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
FRITO-LAY NORTH: Ithier Sues Over Misleading Potato Chips Labels
GENERAL MILLS: Underpays Food Production Employees, Fravel Claims
HANNA LAW: Judgment as to All Counts in McClain FDCPA Suit Affirmed
HOLIDAY CVS: Valiente Sues for Illegal Termination Over Leave
HORIZON HOSPITALITY: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HORIZON TRUST: Threadford Seeks to Recover Losses Under ERISA
HP INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
J & J CUSTOM: Robinson Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Wages
JEDSON ENGINEERING: Wiggins Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Workers
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Howard Smith Announces Securities Class Action
LELY NORTH AMERICA: Kirschbaum Sues Over Defective Astronaut A4
LITTLE HANDS: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
LITTLE ROCK, AR: Class Action Against LRSD Resolved
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Store Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LUCKIN COFFEE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 13 Deadline
LUCKIN COFFEE: Vincent Wong Notes of April 13 Plaintiff Deadline
LUCKIN COFFEE: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MALLINCKRODT: Marietta City Sues Over Seizure Drug Price Hike
MARINEMAX INC: Brabender to Recover Unpaid Commissions, Wages
MELTWATER NEWS: Sales Rep Sues Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
NESTLE USA: Bid to Dismiss Duncan-Watts FLSA/OMFWSA Suit Denied
NICK'S MANAGEMENT: Predmore Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
OPERA LIMITED: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
PAYLESS CAR: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Airport Rental Car Tax
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces SEPTA Securities Suit in Calif.
PRINSCO II LLC: Bunch Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Rosario Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RIOT GAMES: Proposed $10MM Settlement Withdrawn
SABOR HISPANO: Jurado Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED: Student A ADA Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
SASOL LIMITED: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Blackfish Class Action for $65MM
SHUTTERFLY INC: Wants Apollo Acquisition Deal Class Action Tossed
SIKES LAW: Gentry Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SIMON'S AGENCY: Hassine Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SIX FLAGS: Zhang Investor Law Announces Securities Class Action
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action
STATE AUTO PROPERTY: Smith Sues Over Breach of Duty
SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Mangiaterra Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Metcalf Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
TRAVELMASTERS INC: Naiman Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
TREASURY WINE: Faces Class Suit Over Stock Market Disclosure Breach
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Diller Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Lapin Sues in Florida Over Drop in Share Price
U.S. SOCCER: Women's Team Seeks $67MM to End Equal Pay Fight
ULTRA SHINE: Workers Sue Over Denied OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
UNILEVER US: Pardini Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
UNITED KINGDOM: Fathers 4 Justice Mulls Class Action
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Afhan & Iraqi Allies Suit
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App
VOLVO CARS: Laurenses Seek Class Certification
WAWA: Credit Card Firms File Class Actions Over Data Breach
WESTPAC BANKING: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Lawsuit
WINDSTONE HEALTH: Faces Essayli Suit Over Unlawful Wages
WIRELESS VISION: Staff Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
WOORI WELLS: Pae Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
[*] Class Actions Target NYC Landlords Over J-51 Tax Incentive
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $50MM Aearo-Related Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,727 Claimants at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,480 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Paid $38MM to Resolve Claims in 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Has $34MM Reserves for Respirator Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $150MM Unfavorable Development
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $310MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $83MM Claims Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Defends Multiple Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.4-Bil. Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 119 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 597 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Defends Suits at Dec. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SEC Claims Investigation on BorgWarner Continues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.6MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $552.2MM Asbestos Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.28-Bil. Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 800 Active Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at Dec. 31
*********
AARON'S INC: Stein Sues Over False Reports That Inflated Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Stein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AARON'S, INC., JOHN W. ROBINSON, III, and STEVEN A.
MICHAELS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01796 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020), seeks
to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' alleged
misleading statements that artificially inflated the Company's
share prices.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Aaron's securities between March 2, 2018, and February 19,
2020, both dates inclusive,.
According to the complaint, 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:
(i) that Aaron's had inadequate disclosure controls, procedures,
and compliance measures; (ii) that, consequently, the operations of
Aaron's Progressive and AB segments were in violation of the
Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 and/or relevant FTC
regulations; (iii) that, consequently, Aaron's earnings from those
segments were partially derived from unlawful business practices
and were thus unsustainable; (iv) the full extent of Aaron's
liability regarding the FTC's investigation into its Progressive
and AB segments, Aaron's noncompliance with the FTC Act, and the
likely negative consequences of all the foregoing on the Company's
financial results; and (v) that, as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On July 26, 2018, during after-market hours, Aaron's filed a
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, reporting the Company's
financial and operating results for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2018. That Quarterly Report disclosed that, in July 2018,
Aaron's received civil investigative demands ("CIDs") from the FTC
requesting the production of documents and answers to written
questions to determine whether disclosures related to financial
products offered by the Company through its AB and Progressive
segments were in violation of the FTC Act.
On this news, Aaron's stock price fell $5.38 per share, or 11.01%,
to close at $43.47 per share on July 27, 2018.
On February 20, 2020, Aaron's issued a press release announcing the
Company's financial results for the quarter and year ended December
31, 2019. Among other results, Aaron's reported that the Company's
Progressive segment had reached an agreement in principle with FTC
staff regarding the CID from the FTC that Progressive received in
July 2018.
On this news, Aaron's stock price fell $10.70 per share, or 19.06%,
to close at $45.45 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 Aaron's securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Aaron's operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions to underserved and credit-challenged customers, and also
engages in the sale, lease ownership, and specialty retailing of
various products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
ABC PHONES: Hardney Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RON HARDNEY, MANUEL
PANNGASIRI, and MICHELLE SALWAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, Case No.
3:19-cv-12722-BRM-ZNQ (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
an order:
1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action; and
2. authorizing notice to putative opt-in Plaintiffs.
ABC Phones was founded in 1996. The company's line of business
includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services
such as cellular telephone services.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective are:
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Camar R. Jones, Esq.
Alan Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
- and -
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
cjones@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
Attorneys for the Defendant:
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
Tricia B. O'Reilly, Esq.
Selina M. Ellis, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
E-mail: lwalsh@walsh.law
toreilly@walsh.law
sellis@walsh.law
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Settlement Takes Effect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Review Africa reports that the silicosis settlement
agreement reached on 3 May 2018, which is an outcome of the
silicosis and tuberculosis class action litigation, has become
effective.
The Occupational Lung Disease Working Group -- representing African
Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti,
Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye-Stillwater -- and Richard Spoor,
Abrahams Kiewitz and the Legal Resources Centre representing the
claimants, reached this historic settlement after almost five years
of negotiations.
On 26 July 2019 a full bench of the Gauteng Local Division,
Johannesburg, of the High Court, approved the settlement agreement
reached by the parties, but before the agreement could become
effective, class members were given the right to opt out of the
agreement if they so wished.
The 90-day opt out period ended on 24 November 2019. The opt out
submissions underwent an independent audit. The outcome was that
only three class members chose to opt out, indicating that the
support of class members for the settlement is almost entirely
positive.
The agreement provides meaningful compensation to all eligible gold
mineworkers (or their dependants) suffering from silicosis and/or
who contracted work-related tuberculosis.
Eligibility is based on a mineworker having worked for a mine owned
or managed by any of the companies that are party to the settlement
at any time between 12 March 1965 and 10 December 2019.
Tshiamiso Trust being set up
Now that the agreement is unconditional, the Tshiamiso Trust, which
will oversee the processing of claims and payment of benefits to
those eligible, was registered on 28 November 2019 and the
appointment of the full Board of Trustees is underway.
Further details on the establishment of the Trust and how potential
beneficiaries can establish whether they might be eligible for
compensation under the Trust and, if they are potentially eligible,
how to go about establishing a claim, will be made in due course.
[GN]
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Marshall Individual Claims Dismissed in Wilson
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CALVIN WILSON and ASIA MARSHALL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN
COUNTY BOARD OF COMISSIONERS, ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, and ALLEN
COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD, Defendants, Cause No.
1:15-CV-402-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the
U.S. Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, filed on Sept. 9, 2019.
On Dec. 31, 2015, Plaintiff Wilson filed a Complaint in the instant
cause number individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, alleging that the Defendants operated a constitutionally
and structurally deficient public defender system for indigent
defendants charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County,
Indiana. On Feb. 23, 2016, a First Amended Complaint was filed to
add David Blume as a Plaintiff. On May 17, 2016, a Second Amended
Complaint was filed to clarify allegations.
Previously, on Jan. 12, 2015, Ms. Marshall was charged in Allen
County, Indiana, with committing the misdemeanor crimes of Domestic
Battery and Disorderly Conduct. On March 9, 2016, Ms. Marshall was
appointed a public defender in her state Misdemeanor Case. On June
29, 2016, a jury trial was held, and Ms. Marshall was found guilty
of committing Domestic Battery and Disorderly Conduct. She
appealed her conviction and was represented by an Allen County
Public Defender on appeal.
Seeking to add Ms. Marshall as a Plaintiff in the case based on the
representation she received by the Allen County Public Defender in
her state criminal proceedings, Plaintiffs Wilson and Blume filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint on Aug. 11,
2016. With leave of Court, Plaintiffs Wilson, Blume, and Marshall
filed the Third Amended Complaint on Aug. 19, 2016.
Individually, Ms. Marshall alleges that she is being represented by
an Allen County public defender in her Misdemeanor Case, "now on
appeal," and that the public defender is unable to properly
represent her due to his excessive caseload created by the
Defendants' failure to hire a sufficient number of public
defenders. Based on these allegations, Ms. Marshall claims that
the Defendants are violating her constitutional right as an
indigent criminal defendant to effective assistance of legal
counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the
Indiana State Constitution.
Marshall seeks declaratory and prospective injunctive relief
against the Defendants, seeking an increase in the number of public
defenders and support staff providing legal representation to
indigent defendants facing misdemeanor charges filed in Allen
County State Courts. Ms. Marshall makes no request for relief in
the form of money damages in the Third Amended Complaint.
In the state Misdemeanor Case, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued
a Memorandum Decision on Feb. 22, 2017, affirming Ms. Marshall's
conviction for Domestic Battery and, based on the Double Jeopardy
Clause of the Indiana Constitution, remanding her case to the trial
court to vacate the conviction and sentence for Disorderly Conduct.
On May 31, 2017, the Allen Superior Court vacated Ms. Marshall's
conviction and sentence for Disorderly Conduct. Finally, on Aug.3,
2017, Ms. Marshall's state Misdemeanor Case was closed.
The Third Amended Complaint also brings class action allegations
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), seeking declarative
and injunctive relief. On Aug. 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Motion for Class Certification; however, on Aug. 14,
2017, the Court denied the motion with leave to refile. No
subsequent motion for class certification has been filed.
On Aug. 29, 2017, Plaintiff Blume's claims were dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to an agreement by the parties.
In May and June 2018, the counsel for the remaining parties engaged
in settlement negotiations. The counsel agreed that, in light of
actions that Defendants Allen County Council and Allen County
Public Defender Board had taken after the lawsuit was filed to
increase the size of the staff of the Allen County Public
Defender's Office, the Plaintiffs' request for prospective
injunctive relief in the Third Amended Complaint had been
satisfied.
The Defendants offered a number of terms of settlement, which
included, among other things, payment of attorney fees and costs of
$90,000 to the Plaintiffs' counsel, release by the Plaintiffs of
all claims they had against any of the Defendants for "anything
relating to the public defender services provided by the Allen
County Public Defender's Office" to the Plaintiffs, dismissal of
the lawsuit, and execution of an agreement reflecting these terms
by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs' counsel.
In response, counsel for the Plaintiffs communicated that the
Plaintiffs would accept the terms if a "carve out" was included to
allow Ms. Marshall to retain the right to sue Allen County Public
Defender Ryan Lackey for alleged malpractice in the Misdemeanor
Case. On June 15, 2018, the counsel for Defendants called the
Plaintiffs' counsel and communicated that Defendants agreed to the
requisite "carve out." Thus, in the Defendants' view, the lawsuit
settled on June 15, 2018.
On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs' counsel requested certain
additional modifications, including a second "carve out" for Ms.
Marshall to bring a lawsuit against Allen County Public Defender
David Joley for alleged malpractice during representation of her in
the Misdemeanor Case on appeal. The Defendants agreed and sent a
revised draft of the Settlement Agreement on July 10, 2018. On
July 18, 2018, during a telephone call, the Plaintiffs' counsel
informed the counsel for Defendants that Ms. Marshall was not happy
with the settlement because she was not receiving any money.
On Aug. 3, 2018, the counsel for the Defendants sent a final
version of the settlement agreement to the Plaintiffs' counsel.
That same date, the Plaintiffs' counsel expressed Ms. Marshall's
new concern that there was no language in the Settlement Agreement
identifying the changes made to the Allen County Public Defender's
Office as a result of the lawsuit. Although the Settlement
Agreement already contained such language, Defendants agreed to add
more language identifying the changes.
On Aug. 16, 2018, Aug. 17, 2018, and Sept. 6, 2018, Defendants
Allen County Council, Allen County Board of Commissioners, and
Allen County Public Defender Board, respectively, voted on,
approved, and executed the Settlement Agreement. On Aug. 30, 2018,
the Plaintiffs' counsel informed the counsel for the Defendants
that Ms. Marshall refused to sign the Settlement Agreement and that
she was now demanding $300,000 in damages.
As for Plaintiff Wilson's claims, the Defendants represent that Mr.
Wilson executed the Settlement Agreement on Aug. 29, 2018, wherein
he released all claims against the Defendants arising from the
allegations of the Third Amended Complaint and agreed to dismiss
the lawsuit with prejudice. No motion has been filed to dismiss
Mr. Wilson's claims.
On Sept. 18, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement. On Sept. 20, 2018, the Court received a
letter from Ms. Marshall setting forth her dissatisfaction with the
Plaintiffs' attorneys' representation in the lawsuit and asking
that the Court withdraws their representation of her. The same
date, the counsel for the Plaintiffs moved to withdraw their
appearances on behalf of Ms. Marshall. On Oct. 29, 2018, the
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Supplemental Report, in which the
Plaintiffs' counsel explained that Ms. Marshall had been advised
that she needed independent "criminal legal malpractice" attorneys
to proceed with any litigation against her Allen County Public
Defenders for monetary relief.
On Oct. 29, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference at
which the Court granted the motion to withdraw appearance, took
under advisement the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and
granted Ms. Marshall until Nov. 30, 2018, to retain counsel or file
a written document advising the Court why the Settlement Agreement
should not be approved. On Nov. 19, 2018, Ms. Marshall, proceeding
without counsel, filed a Petition for Relief, asking the Court for
relief based on the alleged "ineffective assistance" of the
Plaintiffs' counsel in the case. The Petition for Relief was then
fully briefed.
On July 25, 2019, the Court issued an Opinion denying the
Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and granting in
part and denying in part Ms. Marshall's Petition for Relief,
granting the Petition for Relief only to the extent Ms. Marshall
asked the Court to decline to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
On Sept. 9, 2019, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the Third
Amended Complaint on the basis that Ms. Marshall is the "only
Plaintiff actively litigating the Lawsuit," and that Ms. Marshall's
individual claims are moot. In light of her pro se status, the
Court sua sponte issued an Order on Oct. 9, 2019, extending the
deadline for Ms. Marshall to file a response to the Motion to
Dismiss to Oct. 25, 2019. Ms. Marshall has not filed a response.
In the instant Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants ask the Court to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They
argue that, because Ms. Marshall's state Misdemeanor Case is
closed, her claim for declaratory and injunctive relief no longer
presents a live controversy and is moot, requiring dismissal of the
lawsuit.
Judge Springmann agrees that Ms. Marshall's claims are moot and
dismisses her claims. However, dismissal of the lawsuit is not
proper because Plaintiff Wilson remains a party to the litigation.
Because Ms. Marshall no longer has a personal stake in the
litigation that seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief, her
claims are moot and cannot proceed. However, Mr. Wilson remains a
Plaintiff to the litigation.
Although the Judge recognizes that the Defendants attached a copy
of the settlement agreement Mr. Wilson executed on Aug. 29, 2018,
agreeing to dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, no stipulation
to dismiss his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(2) has been filed to date. Therefore, she granted dismissal
of Ms. Marshall's claims only.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Springmann granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint. She dismissed without repjudice the claims brought by
Plaintiff Marshall individually. The case remains pending as to
Plaintiff Wilson.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/V4166u from Leagle.com.
Calvin Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Asia Marshall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David W.
Frank -- dfrank@myers-law.com -- Christopher C. Myers &
Associates.
Allen County Board of Commissioners, Defendant, represented by G.
William Fishering, Beers Mallers Backs & Salin LLP, J. Spencer
Feighner -- jsf@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin PC, James P.
Posey, Beers Mallers Backs & Salin LLP & Laura L. Maser, Beers
Mallers Backs & Salin LLP.
Allen County Council, Defendant, represented by J. Spencer
Feighner, Haller & Colvin PC & James P. Posey, Beers Mallers
Backs & Salin LLP.
Allen County Public Defender Board, Defendant, represented by J.
Spencer Feighner, Haller & Colvin PC, James P. Posey, Beers
Mallers Backs & Salin LLP & John O. Feighner --
jfeighner@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin PC.
AMERICO FINANCIAL: Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Hancock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM T. HANCOCK, SR., individually and in a
representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE
AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY; INVESTORS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA; AMERICO LIFE, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
19-1374 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Hancock's
amended putative class action complaint for failure to state a
claim.
In 1985, William T. Hancock, Sr., purchased a flexible premium
adjustable life insurance policy from the Defendants. The policy
provided for a $50,000 death benefit if Hancock died before the
date of maturity, which was his 95th birthday. If Hancock was
alive on the date of maturity, he would receive the cash value of
the policy. The policy also provided for an initial minimum
premium of $41.27 per month and a "planned periodic premium" in
that same amount.
Hancock alleges that, although he paid $41.27 per month for more
than 25 years, the Defendants later increased the amount of his
monthly premiums and depleted the cash value of the policy to cover
the difference between the initial minimal premium and the
increased monthly premium, depriving Hancock both of the cash value
and the promised death benefit unless he began to pay higher
monthly premiums.
Hancock appeals the district court's order dismissing for failure
to state a claim his amended putative class action complaint in
which he asserts claims under North Carolina law for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
declaratory and injunctive relief, equitable rescission, and
violation of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("UDTPA").
Hancock asserts that the policy could be reasonably interpreted to
provide that the amount of the monthly premium could only be
changed by the policyholder, and, as a result, coverage under the
policy would be guaranteed if the policyholder paid $41.27 per
month. Accordingly, he argues, the Defendants breached the policy
by increasing the premiums and depleting the cash value of the
policy to make up the difference.
The Fourth Circuit has reviewed the policy and concludes that the
district court correctly determined that, reading the policy as a
whole, the Defendants were permitted under the policy's terms to
require Hancock to pay increased premiums if the cost of insurance
became greater than the cash value of the policy. The district
court therefore correctly dismissed Hancock's claim for breach of
contract.
Hancock next contends that the district court should not have
dismissed his claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing. In every contract there is an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything that
injures the right of the other to receive the benefits of the
agreement.
The Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court that Hancock's
allegations regarding breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing are materially similar to those supporting his claim for
breach of contract. Because the district court properly dismissed
the breach of contract claim and Hancock did not adequately plead
an independent claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, the district court properly dismissed this claim.
Finally, Hancock argues that he pled an adequate claim for relief
under the UDTPA. Section 58-63-15 of the North Carolina Code
defines unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts
or practices relating to the business of insurance, and the North
Carolina courts have held that violations of § 58-63-15 also
constitute violations of the UDTPA. Having reviewed the pleadings,
the Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court that Hancock
failed to state a UDTPA claim.
In light of the foregoing, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment. It dispensed with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before it and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/KPdEH5 from Leagle.com.
William T. Hancock, Sr., Individually and in a representative
capacity on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by H. Forest Horne, Jr., Martin & Jones,
PLLC, Karl Joseph Amelchenko -- email@m-j.com -- Martin & Jones,
PLLC & John Alan Jones, Martin & Jones, PLLC.
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company & Americo
Life, Inc., Defendants, represented by Carl C. Scherz --
cscherz@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Debbie Weston Harden --
dharden@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Jackson
R. Price -- japrice@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP,
Roger
B. Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F.
Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP.
Investors Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant,
represented by Debbie W. Harden -- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com --
Jackson R. Price -- jackson.price@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Roger B. Cowie
-- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Carl C. Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com
-- Taylor F. Brinkman -- tbrinkman@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD
LLP.
AMP: Shine Lawyers to File Class Action Over Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aleks Vickovich, writing for Financial Review, reports that Shine
Lawyers is investigating a class action against embattled wealth
manager AMP alleging it breached its fiduciary duty to an estimated
100,000 customers and ripped them off by selling in-house insurance
policies with high premiums.
The plaintiff law firm has confirmed it will "imminently" file a
lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against AMP's life
insurance arm and three of its financial advice subsidiaries, AMP
Financial Planning, Charter Financial Planning and Hillross.
The class action is being bankrolled by London-based Woodsford
Litigation Funding.
It will allege that AMP failed to act in the best interests of
clients by allowing financial advisers operating under its licences
to receive "commissions and other incentives" for recommending
in-house AMP life insurance products, despite knowing they could
obtain equivalent policies with lower premiums through
competitors.
The suit is open to customers who obtained an AMP Flexible Lifetime
Policy including death, total and permanent disability, trauma,
income protection and business protection insurance from 2013 on
the recommendation of authorised representatives of AMP FP, Charter
or Hillross.
Shine estimated that as many as 100,000 former AMP customers may
have suffered losses as a result of the failure to "provide
objective advice" and could be eligible to participate.
No 'corporate will'
The investigation follows the Federal Court handing a victory to
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission last week in
its dispute against AMPFP over alleged life insurance product
"churning".
The court ruled that AMP failed to show the "corporate will" to
stop former financial adviser Rommel Panganiban from churning 49
clients into new AMP insurance policies and pocketing hefty
commissions. It faces a penalty of more than $5 million.
A number class action litigation suits are in various stages of
progress against AMP, including two for the company's role in the
fees for no service scandal uncovered by ASIC and the Hayne royal
commission and another for alleged charging of excessive
administration fees to superannuation fund members.
The wealth manager was set to unveil its half-year financial
results on Feb. 13 and was expected to provide an update on the
pending sale of its life insurance business to UK-based Resolution
Life, which has not received regulatory approval. [GN]
ANEJO GROUP: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Tip Credit
------------------------------------------------------
Amando Perez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Anejo, LLC, David Feit, Angelo Sosa, John
Paul Valenti, John A. Diehl III, Ricardo Camacho Jr. and Charlie
LNU, Defendants, Case No. 150980/2020, (N.Y. Sup., January 28,
2020), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum wages due to an
invalid tip credit deduction, unpaid spread of hours premium,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
Defendants operate two restaurants in New York City as a single
integrated enterprise under the shared trade name "Anejo," where
Perez was hired as a food runner at an Anejo restaurant located at
301 Church Street, New York until April 2019.
Perez claims to be paid below the minimum wage at an invalid "tip
credit" minimum wage, without a tip credit notice. He adds that
Anejo claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite the fact that
tipped employees engage in non-tipped duties for hours exceeding
20% of the total hours worked each workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
APPLE INC: Employees File Class Action for Unpaid Security Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dealerscope Today reports that an interesting lawsuit came into the
spotlight recently involving an unfair practice imposed on Apple
store employees. For years, Apple workers have been required to
undergo a 10-20 minute search at the end of their shift to ensure
no company assets or trade secrets were stolen.
This protocol led a group of employees to file a class action
lawsuit against Apple in 2013 but two years later, a California
judge dismissed the lawsuit ruling in Apple's favor. Apple argued
that employees could avoid searches by not bringing a bag or an
iPhone to work at all. But this time around, the state Supreme
Court sided with the plaintiffs ruling the Apple was in violation
of state law by not paying employees for their time spent waiting
and undergoing mandatory security checks.
A California Supreme Court Judge also pointed out the hypocrisy in
Apple's case from 2015 saying "Its characterization of the iPhone
as unnecessary for its own employees is directly at odds with its
description of the iPhone as an ‘integrated and integral' part of
the lives of everyone else,"
The unpaid time claimed by the plaintiffs might not seem like much,
but when you add up current and former employees of 52 Apple
stores, it's pretty significant. Apple will have to pay as much as
$60 million to 12,400 former and current employees at 52 Apple
stores across California.
As the L.A. Times explained, the court's decision is retroactive.
The case will return to the 9th Circuit where the federal judges
will apply the interpretation of state law. So it looks like this
time, things worked out in Apple employees' favor. [GN]
APPSOLUTELY MEDIA: Schaffer Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Schaffer and Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Appsolutely Media LLC and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00187 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Appsolutely Media was commissioned by a car dealership to promote
its sales via telemarketing. Plaintiffs claim to have received
auto-dialed telemarketing calls from Appsolutely Media on their
phones despite being registered in the National Do-Not-Call
registry. [BN]
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
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
AT&T INC: Loses Key Ruling in Unlimited-Data Throttling Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Brodkin, writing for ARS Technica, reports that a panel of US
appeals court judges ruled in February that AT&T's
mandatory-arbitration clause is unenforceable in a class-action
case over AT&T's throttling of unlimited data.
The nearly five-year-old case has gone through twists and turns,
with AT&T's forced-arbitration clause initially being upheld in
March 2016. If that decision had stood, the customers would have
been forced to have any complaints heard individually in
arbitration.
But an April 2017 decision by the California Supreme Court in a
different case effectively changed the state's arbitration law,
causing a US District Court judge to revive the class action in
March 2018.
AT&T appealed that ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, but a three-judge panel at that court rejected AT&T's
appeal in the ruling issued February. Judges said they must follow
the California Supreme Court decision—known as the McGill
rule—"which held that an agreement, like AT&T's, that waives
public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California
public policy and unenforceable."
"Because we are bound by our decision in Blair [another case
involving the McGill rule], we hold that AT&T's arbitration
agreement is unenforceable. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court's order denying AT&T's motion to compel arbitration," judges
wrote Tuesday.
AT&T claimed that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the
California law, but the appeals court had already ruled in Blair
that this federal law doesn't preempt the McGill rule. The judges
were also not persuaded by AT&T's argument that the court "abused
its discretion in reconsidering its initial order compelling
arbitration."
Judges wrote:
Here, the district court identified and applied the correct
legal rule—a district court should grant a motion for
reconsideration only if the "district court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an
intervening change in the controlling law." In other words, a
motion for reconsideration "may not be used to raise arguments or
present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
been raised earlier in the litigation." The district court found
that McGill changed the controlling law and that Plaintiffs could
not have reasonably raised McGill's public injunctive relief issue
earlier in the litigation. [GN]
B.C. LOTTERY: Promoting Dangerous Video Slot, Says Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
BIV reports that a class-action lawsuit launched against the
provincial government and the British Columbia Lottery Corp.
alleges video slot machines in gaming facilities across B.C. are
"inherently deceptive, inherently addictive and inherently
dangerous when used as intended."
Lead plaintiff Corina Riesebos filed a notice of civil claim under
the Class Proceedings Act in BC Supreme Court on February 10.
According to the claim, video slot machines deceive users with
hidden odds and "create cognitive distortions" to keep people
playing and losing money.
"Similar to loaded dice or games of sleight of hand, video slots
combine randomness with subliminal priming, concealed asymmetry and
non-linear payables to deceive the user as to the operation of the
game and the real chances of winning," the claim states. "Some
video slots also have a ‘stop' button or similar input that
further reinforces the illusion that the user has some control over
the outcome of play."
But the lawsuit claims video slots cannot be controlled by users
since the outcome is predetermined at the start of play by a random
number generator. The machines are in use at 15 casinos, two
racecourses and 18 community gaming centres, according to the
lawsuit. The defendants, it claims, knew or should have known of
the "deceptive, addictive and dangerous design features of video
slots."
"Use of the video slots as intended resulted in the Plaintiff and
the Class suffering economic losses, emotional distress and mental
anguish, and other expected harms flowing from these losses and
injuries such as addiction, dependency, self-harm and/or suicide,"
the claim states. "Given the Defendants' unique positions as the
monopolists and sole regulators of video slots, charged with a duty
to act in the public interest, knowledge of the design features and
effects of video slots should be attributed to the Defendants."
Riesebos seeks class certification on behalf of all people who paid
to play "line games on video slots" in B.C. from February 7, 2018.
The class action seeks declaratory relief that the defendants
failed to provide a "fair and safe way to play video slots" and an
order to disgorge $1 billion in profits and revenues for the
"unlawful" promotion and authorization of video slot machines. The
allegations have not been tested or proven in court, and the
defendnats had not responded to the claim by press time. [GN]
BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Salish Suit with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the case, SALISH SKAJET
KWABACABS TRIBAL REPUBLIC, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01670-MO (D. Or.), as
against all the Defendants.
On Nov. 5, 2018, the principal Plaintiffs -- William X. Nietzche,
along with Julie A. Metcalf Kinney and William Kinney, Jr. -- filed
a previous action in the Court before District Judge Michael H.
Simon (Nietzche v. Freedom Home Mortgage Corp., No.
3:18-cv-01930-SI). In the action before Judge Simon, Mr. Nietzche
and the Kinneys alleged 35 claims for relief against 21 named
Defendants and numerous Doe Defendants. While their claims
frequently lacked coherence, the underlying dispute centered around
a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of the Kinneys' property. On Oct.
8, 2019, Judge Simon dismissed with prejudice all of the claims
against all of the Defendants.
On Oct. 16, 2019, Mr. Nietzche and the Kinneys filed the present
action. Styled a "Quit Tam Class Action," the Amended Complaint
also names as the Plaintiffs: Salish Skajet Kwabacabs Tribal
Republic ("SSKTR"); Lucille Wills (terminated Jan. 9, 2020); the
"United State Federal Government"; Federal Housing Finance Agency;
and Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac.
All of the Plaintiffs, including the institutional entities, are
unrepresented by the counsel. The complaint names 25 Defendants.
The Defendants include: (1) Various purported corporate forms of
HSBC Bank; (2) various individuals purported to work for, or to be
associated with, the various HSBC entities; (3) Urban Housing
Development, LLC ("UHD"); (4) Various individuals -- mostly
attorneys -- purportedly associated with UHD; (5) Judge Simon; (6)
multiple state court judges of the Multnomah County Circuit Court.
Several of the named Defendants in the present action were also
named in the previous action before Judge Simon.
Judge Mosman finds that the Plaintiffs' 81-page complaint is
largely incoherent, and rests on conclusory statements and bare
allegations that do not state plausible or legally cognizable
claims. The Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state any legally
cognizable claims and appears to be an effort to re-litigate
grievances that received over a year of attention from the Court
and were ultimately dismissed with prejudice. As a result, the
case is dismissed with prejudice as against all the Defendants.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/tVsylE from Leagle.com.
Salish Skajet Kwabacabs Tribal Republic, SSKTR, Plaintiff, pro se.
William X. Nietzche, solely as Trustee for SSKTR Trust, Plaintiff,
pro se.
William Kinney, Jr., solely as Beneficiary under SSKTR Trust,
Plaintiff, pro se.
Julie Ann Metcalf Kinney, solely as Beneficiary under SSKTR Trust,
Plaintiff, pro se.
United State Federal Government, for the United States of America,
Plaintiff, pro se.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Plaintiff, pro se.
Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac, Plaintiff, pro se.
BEYOND MEAT: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Beyond Meat, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BYND) between May 2, 2019 and January 27, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the case go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=beyond-meat-inc&id=2167
To discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact:
Sophie Zhang, Esq.
Spencer Lee
Zhang Investor Law
Toll-free at 800-991-3756
E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com
According to the case, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Beyond Meat's termination
of its supply agreement with Don Lee constituted a breach of that
agreement, thus exposing the Company to foreseeable legal liability
and reputational harm; (2) Beyond Meat and certain of its employees
had doctored and omitted material information from a food safety
consultant's report, which the Company represented as accurate to
Don Lee; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your
choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. [GN]
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Espinal Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as OMAR A. ESPINAL, FREDY O.
CARBAJAL, ARLEN Y. MARTINEZ, OSCAR RENE CALDERON ROMERO and
WELLINGTON TORRES, On behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, XPO LAST MILE,
INC., ABC CORPS. and JANE & JOHN DOES, Case No.:
2:17-cv-02854-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all individuals that were based out of Defendants' Edison
and Carteret, New Jersey, warehouses that performed truck
driving and/or helper functions for the Defendants from
April 26, 2015 through to January 2017 out of the Edison
Facility and from May 1, 2017 through to the present out of
the Carteret Facility, who did not have direct contracts
with either Defendant";
2. appointing Plaintiffs' legal counsel as Class Counsel;
3. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
4. granting Court-facilitated Notice of this Class Action to
all Class Members;
5. directing Defendants to produce the names, last known
address, alternate addresses (if any), all known telephone
numbers, all known email addresses, social security numbers,
dates of birth and dates of employment of all Class Members;
and
Bob's Discount is an American furniture store headquartered in
Manchester, Connecticut. Bob's Discount Furniture was founded in
1991 with its first store in Newington, Connecticut and is ranked
12th in sales among United States furniture stores according to
Furniture Today's list of Top 100 Furniture Stores.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
Anthony S. Almeida, Esq.
SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP
50 Millstone Road
Building 300, Suite 202
East Windsor, NJ 08520
Telephone: (609) 469-2110
Facsimile: (609) 228-564
E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com
aalmeida@s-tlawfirm.com
BRIGANTINE INC: Sandoval Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alexander Sandoval, Arlyn Angulo, Brian
Medigovich, Jason Casillas, Johnny Espinoza, Luke Francis Johnson,
Misael Rosalez, Salvador Valadez, Silvia Alegria and Yolanda Flores
Landa, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Brigantine, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00063186
(Cal. Super., November 26, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on January 29, 2020
under Case No. 20-cv-00189.
Plaintiffs seek redress for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due
terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Clowney, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANK S. CLOWNEY III
600 B Street, Suite 2300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 618-2419
Fax: (619) 557-0482
The Brigantine is represented by:
James C. Fessenden, Esq.
Kevonna J. Ahmad, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
E-Mail: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com
kahmad@fisherphillips.com
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Class Suit Certification Expected in 6-8 Weeks
------------------------------------------------------------------
BNN Bloomberg reports that Canadian litigator Marie Henein said
that she expects the class action lawsuit centred on CannTrust
Holdings should be certified by an Ontario judge in the next six to
eight weeks. "The best outcome is the greatest amount of recovery
for the investors to put them back in their original position,"
Henein said in a BNN Bloomberg interview on Feb. 11. The
high-profile lawyer said there are questions about CannTrust that
need to be answered, including "things that jump off the financial
statements." A CannTrust spokesperson wasn't immediately available
to react to Henein's comments.[GN]
CH ROBINSON: Growers File $1.1-Bil. Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Alex Lennane, writing for The Loadstar, reports that CH Robinson
Worldwide and subsidiary Robinson Fresh engaged in "unconscionable
and deceptive business practices" by making secret profits from
growers, it is alleged.
In a class action lawsuit filed in January, the growers are
demanding $1.1bn in damages from the $11.4bn-company.
The 66-page filing alleges sharp practices by CHR, including in a
charitable scheme for breast cancer organisations, and that
executives knew the lawsuit was coming, but failed to tell
"clueless investors", while continuing to trade shares themselves.
"CHR Worldwide knows no road too low to travel, or any class of
person or business too fragile to victimise, to further its
profit-by-deception scheme," claim the plaintiffs.
The produce growers from across the US and beyond argue that, under
their contracts with Robinson Fresh, they would be paid the "fair
seasonal price" for their produce, while CH Robinson would take
sales commission.
"Robinson Fresh agreed to report the true sales price for all of
plaintiffs' consigned produce and to take its sole profit, its
sales commission, from the commissions generated by the sales of
produce," they say.
However, the growers claim, CH Robinson also took rebates from
pallet provider Chep USA, trucking companies and seed suppliers and
did not give the rebates back to the growers.
"In addition, Robinson Fresh contracted for an additional reduction
of 2% of freight charges made by carriers and retained that
reduction for itself and did not disclose or pass the savings on,"
they add and also claim that Robinson Fresh added false charges to
growers for packing, labelling, and other items.
They also allege "freight topping" -- in some cases, "unauthorised
freight profits exceeded $1,000 per load of produce".
The case also notes the company's ‘MelonUp! Pink Ribbon
Watermelons' campaign for breast cancer, and "Robinson Fresh claims
it donated millions of dollars on behalf of its retail customers to
breast cancer organisations. In truth, CHR Worldwide secretly
charged its growers for these donations without ever disclosing
that fact to its growers, customers, or the beneficiaries of the
growers' monies", it alleges.
When the growers complained about high costs in 2015 or 2016 and
asked for CH Robinson's help in cutting third party costs,
"Robinson Fresh never told the plaintiffs and other growers it was
receiving backdoor payments from third-party vendors, and it failed
to remit such payments to plaintiffs or other consignment
growers".
When a CH Robinson employee "raised the issue of the propriety of
these practices", he was told CHR Worldwide was not "going to open
that can of worms".
The claim adds: "CHR Worldwide's executive officers knowingly
engaged in the illegal conduct alleged herein; they have known
about this lawsuit and its facts months before it was filed -- and
even enlisted their attorneys to communicate with plaintiffs'
counsel several times about when the lawsuit would be filed. But
instead of taking action to end their misdeeds, they doubled-down
and literally traded on their knowledge and profited by trading
stock without disclosing their knowledge of this class action
lawsuit -- or the facts alleged herein -- to clueless CHRW
investors."
The growers say the accounting "secrets" were made possible owing
to the group's two different accounting systems. Growers were able
to see the accounts on Robinson Fresh's Famous system – but the
actual accounts, containing rebates and other information, were
held in CH Robinson's Navisphere and Compass platforms.
"Despite CHR Worldwide's "commitment to the highest standards of
business ethics", Robinson Fresh's consignment accountings to the
plaintiffs were false, deceptive, incomplete, misleading and
rendered in a manner to cover up CHR Worldwide's secret profits it
was making at the expense of the plaintiffs and other consignment
growers, as well as unauthorised and undisclosed expenditures."
It was only when CH Robinson decided in May 2019 it would no longer
separately report freight revenues for Robinson Fresh that its
practices were made public, they say.
In a related case, melon growers are also suing CHR for contracting
too many growers, resulting in insufficient demand and loss of
earnings.
CH Robinson has yet to respond to the allegations, but has asked
for, and won, an extension to its deadline to respond until March.
[GN]
CINTAS CORP: Says Securities Class Action Suit Has No Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ruvo, writing for Advertising Specialty Institute,
reports that Cintas, the 14th-largest distributor in the North
American promotional products industry by revenue, is preparing to
defend against a class action lawsuit.
Based in Los Angeles, The Schall Law Firm has filed the suit
against Cintas, which is headquartered in Cincinnati.
The complaint alleges that Cintas, a publicly traded company, made
false and misleading statements about its financial situation.
Those statements constitute a violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the suit alleges.
The purported impropriety allegedly affected investors who
purchased Cintas securities between March 6, 2017 and Nov. 13,
2019. "When the market learned the truth about Cintas, investors
suffered damages," The Schall Law Firm said in a statement.
In particular, the suit alleges that Cintas failed to track legacy
margins after it acquired uniform rental company G&K Services in
2016.
"The company continually provided guidance that it knew it could
outperform in a 'beat and raise' scheme," The Schall Law Firm
claims. "In fact, the company breached the law in multiple
instances, putting its credit agreement at risk. Based on these
facts, the company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period."
A spokeswoman for Cintas told Counselor that the company does not
comment on pending litigation. Still, she added that Cintas
believes the lawsuit has no merit. Cintas will "will defend
ourselves vigorously in court," she said.
Counselor estimates that Cintas' 2018 North American promotional
product revenue was $173.2 million, good enough to put the firm
among the industry's 20 largest distributors. Still, Cintas' total
business is much larger than promo, including channels like its
flagship uniform services. For its fiscal year ended May 31, 2019,
Cintas' total global revenue across its entire business was $6.89
billion. [GN]
CJS SOLUTIONS: Bid to Cond. Certify Class in Vallone Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joyce Vallone and Erasmus Igokor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The CJS
Solutions Group, LLC d/b/a The HCI Group, Defendant, Civ. No.
19-1532 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification.
Plaintiffs Vallone and Ikogor worked for Defendant HCI. In late
April and May 2018, Vallone worked at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester,
assisting physicians, nurses, and others with the transition to a
new computerized patient-management system. Ikogor also worked for
HCI at Mayo during this time. In addition, Ikogor worked for HCI
at hospitals in St. Louis and New York City.
The Plaintiffs contend that they were not paid for the time they
spent traveling from remote locations -- usually their homes -- to
the worksites and back to the remote location at the end of their
assignments. They assert that the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") requires such payment. The Plaintiffs also contend that
they traveled to Rochester on April 29, 2018, at HCI's direction,
only to have the training scheduled for April 30, 2018, cancelled
abruptly late in the evening of April 29. HCI did not compensate
them for April 30, despite that they were in Rochester waiting to
work.
The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a FLSA class
consisting of all hourly paid, non-exempt, W-2 employees of The CJS
Solutions Group, LLC, d/b/a The HCI Group (HCI), whose time was
neither paid under the federal minimum wage or overtime laws: (1)
while engaging in out-of-town travel (with a corresponding
overnight stay), wherein the travel was undertaken during the
employee's normal working hours; or (2) on April 30, 2018, at the
Mayo Clinic location, for workers who did not live in the
Rochester, Minnesota area.
The class period is from June 10, 2016, through the date of any
order granting certification of the collective action. The
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as collective action
representatives and their counsel as the class counsel, directing
HCI to provide the Plaintiffs with the names of all the putative
class members, directing that notice be provided to all these
individuals in specific ways, and tolling the statute of
limitations as of the date the Plaintiffs filed the instant
Motion.
HCI argues that conditional certification is inappropriate because
the Court lacks jurisdiction over any dispute that does not involve
a Minnesota plaintiff or work performed in Minnesota and because
many members of the putative class signed arbitration agreements
that prohibit them from bringing lawsuits such as the case. HCI
also contends that there are too many other individualized
inquiries at play, such as whether the putative Plaintiff's travel
occurred during their "normal working hours" as the regulations
require.
While Judge Magnuson would prefer that the parties more explicitly
raise jurisdiction as a defense in their pleadings, he is reluctant
to deprive a party of its constitutional rights on the basis of
inartful pleadings. HCI has not waived its right to assert lack of
jurisdiction as a defense to the collective action.
The weight of authority is that the strictures of BMS apply in the
FLSA conditional certification context. The Plaintiffs must
establish that there is a connection between Minnesota and their
individual claims against HCI. That means that the Court has
jurisdiction only over the claims of HCI workers who were assigned
to the Mayo Clinic project or workers who are Minnesota residents.
To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek certification of a
collective action that involves individuals other than Mayo Clinic
workers or Minnesota residents, that request must be denied.
Judge Magnuson finds that the Plaintiffs have established that a
collective action consisting of HCI's Mayo Clinic workers and
Minnesota residents is appropriate. He requests that the parties
agree on a new class definition encompassing the limitations within
10 days of the date of the Order. He will deny without prejudice
the Plaintiffs' request to toll the statute of limitations as of
the date they filed the certification motion. Should the statute
of limitations become relevant to any opt-in Plaintiff's claims,
the Plaintiffs may re-raise the issue at that point.
The parties may address in the briefing on that the Motion whether
any specific members of the narrowed collective are subject to
valid arbitration agreements and thus should not be part of the
collective. Judge Magnuson will not deny conditional certification
on this basis.
Next, Judge Magnuson finds that HCI's argument regarding the
different modes of transportation putative Plaintiffs may have
taken to get to the remote jobsite is irrelevant at best. The
Plaintiffs have established that they are at least colorably
similarly situated and were the victims of a single policy or
decision on HCI's part with respect to the Mayo Clinic project and
the April 30 cancelled training.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoints them to represent
the collective and appoint their counsel as the counsel for the
collective. But they offer no argument in support of this request,
and the Court can find no cases discussing such appointment at this
stage in the litigation. The request is therefore denied without
prejudice, rules Judge Magnuson.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order HCI to provide personal
information for all members of the putative collective. But the
information they demand includes sensitive information such as each
individual's social security number. It is inappropriate for the
Court to order the production of such private information. Rather,
HCI will provide the Plaintiffs with the putative collective
members' names, mailing addresses, and last known email addresses.
Judge Magnuson agrees with HCI that the Plaintiffs' proposed notice
program is inappropriate, especially given the limited collective
to be certified in the case. Mailing and e-mailing notice of the
action is sufficient, and HCI need not provide notice with
employees' paychecks. A 60-day notice period is also sufficient,
and thus a reminder mid-way through that period is unnecessary.
HCI raised a number of objections to the original form notice and
consent the Plaintiffs submitted. The revised collective
definition resolves some of these objections, but many others
remain. Most of HCI's remaining objections, however, rely on
authority from courts outside the Eighth Circuit, and thus are not
binding nor particularly persuasive.
Judge Magnuson encourages the parties to come to an agreement on a
form of notice and consent, and on a notice program, that comply
with the Court's directives. They should submit the notice,
consent, and proposed notice program for approval when submitting
the revised collective definition. Judge Magnuson will authorize
notice to the collective after receipt of the parties' proposed
notice program.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Magnuson granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/9WNlHw from Leagle.com.
Joyce Vallone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Erasmus Ikogor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kelly A. Lelo --
klelo@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP & T. Joseph Snodgrass --
jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP.
The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as HCI Group,
Defendant, represented by Claire B. Deason -- cdeason@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, P.A., Corey Christensen --
cchristensen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. & Jacqueline E.
Kalk -- jkalk@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.
COLLINS ASSET: Thaxton Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Thaxton and Patricia Thaxton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC, COLLINS
& HILTON ASSET GROUP, LLC, DIVERSIFIED FINANCING, LLC, MARK W.
MILLER, ALT MONEY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ALT MONEY INVESTMENTS II, LLC,
ALT MONEY INVESTMENTS III, LLC, ALT MONEY INVESTMENTS IV, LLC, and
SONOQUI, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00941-CAP (N.D. Ga., Feb. 28, 2020),
arises from an alleged fraudulent scheme orchestrated by and among
the Defendants, who fraudulently induced the Plaintiffs to invest
in what was falsely described to them as safe and conservative
portfolios of commercial and customer accounts receivable market
investments that were purportedly managed by the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs are victims of this scheme and in April 2015 they
invested approximately $222,000 of their hard-earned retirement
savings into the scheme and lost their entire investment, according
to the complaint.
The crux of Defendants' investment scheme is that from at least
2013-2018, Collins Asset Group, LLC and Collins & Hilton Asset
Group, LLC raised investment capital from the Plaintiffs and
proposed Class Members to purchase distressed accounts receivables
for Collins' business through the issuance of unregistered
securities in the form of promissory notes issued to the Plaintiffs
and Class Members. At no time were any of the Defendants licensed
in any capacity under federal law or in any State, including
Georgia, to issue securities, sell securities, act as a
broker-dealer, investment adviser or associated person of a
broker-dealer or investment adviser, or to manage investments in
any capacity, the Plaintiffs assert.
According to the complaint, the Defendants operated in concert and
disseminated marketing materials to the Plaintiffs containing
material misrepresentations and omissions that falsely promised
that the Plaintiffs would not only be guaranteed to receive their
principal back at a future date, e.g. 5 years after investing, but
that the Plaintiffs would be able to participate and profit from
Defendants Collins Asset Group, LLC's and Collins & Hilton Asset
Group, LLC's expertise in collecting on the debt. Also, the
Defendants falsely promised that the Plaintiffs' investment
principal would be 100% secured by the assets of Defendant Collins
Asset Group, LLC.
Defendants Collins Asset Group, LLC and Collins & Hilton Asset
Group, LLC created and facilitated a layered investment scheme that
structured the business, relationships, and written agreements with
a network of shell companies, e.g. Defendants Diversified
Financing, LLC, Sonoqui, LLC and the ALT Money entities in an to
attempt to avoid repaying the Plaintiffs and Class Members anything
in return for their investments and to avoid the appearance that
the Defendants were selling unregistered and illegal securities.
Furthermore, after the Plaintiffs invested with the Defendants, the
Defendants actively concealed the fraudulent scheme from them by
providing account statements and other documents containing false
information meant to reassure the Plaintiffs that their investments
were safe and performing properly when they were not.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants are liable to them and
Class Members for breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
breach of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation
and concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud, aiding and abetting
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to commit a breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
constructive fraud, conversion, and violations of O.C.G.A.
(Georgia's RICO claim).
The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the State of Georgia.
Collins Asset Group, LLC is a debt collection company that was
formed in Delaware on October 27, 2011.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason R. Doss, Esq.
THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
The Brumby Building
127 Church Street, Suite 220
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: (770) 578-1314
Facsimile: (770) 578-1302
Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com
COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Jairam Files Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colourpop Cosmetics,
LLC. The case is styled as Anita Jairam, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Colourpop Cosmetics,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-mc-60286-RS (S.D., Fla., Feb. 11,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutory
Actions.
ColourPop Cosmetics, also known as ColourPop, is a cosmetics brand
based in Los Angeles, California. The company was founded in 2014
by siblings Laura and John Nelson. ColourPop products are available
online through their website or at Ulta Beauty.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 496-4469
Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Doe Suit Over Hadden's Sexual Abuses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Does 16, 29, 79, 82, and 84 individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; THE NEW YORK
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER;
COLUMBIA-PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER, EAST SIDE ASSOCIATES; THE
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK; COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS; PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES ORGANIZATION, INC.; COLUMBIA CORNELL
NETWORK PHYSICIANS, INC.; SLOANE HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN; (hereinafter
referred to as "CORP. ENTITIES"), ROBERT HADDEN, an individual;
Case No. 1:20-cv-01791 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020), seeks to
vindicate the rights of women, who were sexually exploited, abused,
harassed and molested at the hands of serial sexual predator
Defendant Robert Hadden, while they were patients at the Defendant
Corp. Entities.
While attending the Defendant "CORP. ENTITIES" medical facilities,
the Plaintiffs were forced to repeatedly seek medical treatment
from Defendant-sexual predator Robert Hadden, due to the fact that
"CORP. ENTITIES", their agents, servants, employees, chaperones,
other doctors, and supervisors, repeatedly and actively concealed,
conspired, and enabled, the sexual exploitation and abuse being
committed by Defendant Robert Hadden, according to the complaint.
Robert Hadden used this position of trust and authority to sexually
exploit and serially sexually abuse the Plaintiffs on countless
occasions by engaging in deviant sexual acts that included:
grooming, sexually exploiting, fondling, ogling, penetrating and
groping the Plaintiffs' bodies and genitalia for no medical
purpose; forcing the Plaintiffs to strip naked; groping and/or
fondling the Plaintiffs' breasts; digitally penetrating the
Plaintiffs' vaginas; digitally penetrating the Plaintiffs' anuses,
grooming the Plaintiffs for further exploitation and sexual abuse;
making sexually inappropriate remarks and deviant statements to
plaintiffs in an effort to lower their boundaries and break-down
their defenses; performing inappropriate and sexually abusive "mole
checks"; spreading open the Plaintiffs' anal crevices so he could
leer at their bodies and anuses for his own deviant sexual
gratification; increasing the level of inappropriate statements and
sexual exploitation and abuse of the Plaintiffs over time; evading,
manipulating and/or intimidating medical chaperones and/or
university personnel; performing serial vaginal examinations for no
medical purpose, performing serial Pap smears as an excuse to
access and penetrate their vaginas for his own deviant sexual
gratification and pleasure, sexually exploiting female patients to
satisfy his own prurient and deviant sexual desires, and
surreptitiously licking countless patients' vaginas during the
performance of phony, and medically unnecessary, vaginal
examinations and Pap smears.
Despite the fact that medical chaperones, nurses, supervisors,
administrators, doctors and other hospital personnel were aware of
the sexual exploitation and abuse being perpetrated by Robert
Hadden, dating back to at least the 1990s, Defendant "CORP.
ENTITIES", actively and deliberately--and inexplicably--concealed
Robert Hadden's sexual abuse for decades, and continued to grant
Robert Hadden unfettered access to vulnerable, unsuspecting,
pregnant and non-pregnant female patients at Columbia University
Medical Center and their related entities, all in a deceitful and
disdainful attempt to protect Defendants Columbia University, its
Trustees, and affiliated and related Corp. Entities' reputation,
says the complaint.
Plaintiffs Jane Does 16, 29, 79, 82, and 84 are victims of a sexual
battery.
Defendant Robert Hadden is an adult male, who worked at Defendant
"CORP. ENTITIES."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY T. DIPIETRO
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway, Suite 880
Phone: (212) 233-3600
Email: cases@ATDLaw.com
- and -
Adam P. Slater, Esq.
SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 922-0906
Email: aslater@sssfirm.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 238-1700
Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
- and -
Martin G. Rubenstein, Esq.
LEVY, BALDANTE, FINNEY & RUBENSTEIN, P.C.
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-1616
Email: Rubenstein@levybaldante.com
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S: Certification of Trainees Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDRE MEJIA, CHRIS KERTESZ,
and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v.
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE SCHOOL INC., a New York corporation,
ALBERT V. HANLEY III, individually, and MICHAEL HANLEY,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-20575-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of the case as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act consisting of:
"all individuals that: a) became truck driving instructor
trainees for CDL in any location in the United States; and
b) worked more than forty hours in any of the six weeks of
training during the time period of February 7, 2017, through
December 16, 2018; and c) were not paid at time-and-a-half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above 40 in
any workweek of the training period during the
aforementioned time period";
2. appointing Andre Mejia, as the Representative of the Class
with authority to negotiate and appear at settlement
conferences / mediations on behalf of the class;
3. appointing the law firm of USA Employment Lawyers - Jordan
Richards PLLC as counsel for the Class;
4. expediting discovery production from the Defendants, within
10 calendar days of the Court's Order granting this Motion,
of a complete list, electronically in an Excel spreadsheet,
of each and every driving instructor listed alphabetically
from "A" to "Z" -- including their last known home address,
cellular telephone number, e-mail addresses, and the last
four digits of social security numbers, a separate field
corresponding with each name -- who was ever employed as a
Driving Instructor Trainee in the United States by
Defendants at any time between February 7, 2017, and
December 16, 2018;
5. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to send a Court-Approved
Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt-in to
this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit;
and
6. granting the putative class 60 days to submit the Consents
to Join to Plaintiffs' Counsel.
The Plaintiffs filed this collective action lawsuit seeking to
recover unpaid wages from their employers in violations of the FLSA
for failure to pay proper overtime wages for all hours of work over
40 per week.
The Commercial Driver's License School, Inc. provides educational
services. The company offers various driving programs. Commercial
Driver's License School serves customers in the State of
Florida.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake Blumstein, Esq.
Melissa Scott, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
Counsel for Albert V. Hanley III & Commercial Driver's License
School, Inc. are:
Phillip M. Hudson, Esq.
Kevin Vance, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 960-2200
Facsimile: (305) 960-2201
E-mail: phil.hudson@saul.com
kevance@duanemorris.com
Co-Counsel for Michael Hanley are:
Harry N. Turk, Esq.
HARRY N. TURK, P.A.
Sun Trust International Center
One S.E. 3rd Ave., Ste. 2900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 350-2223
E-mail: Hturk@turklaw.org
- and -
Judson L. Cohen, Esq.
WEINSTEIN & COHEN, P.A.
Oaks Plaza
14125 N.W. 80th Avenue, Ste. 400
Miami Lakes, FL 33016
Telephone: (305) 374-1011
E-mail: jcohen@weinsteincohen.com
CRAFT BREW: Sabatini Files Suit Over Sale to Anheuser-Busch
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sabatini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., David R. Lord,
Timothy P. Boyle, Marc J. Cramer, Paul D. Davis, Matthew E.
Gilbertson, Kevin R. Kelly, Nickolas A. Mills, Jacqueline S.
Woodward, Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC and Barrel Subsidiary,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00138 (D. Del., January 29, 2020)
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Craft
Brew Alliance, Inc. by Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC and Barrel
Subsidiary, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Craft Brew Alliance
stockholders will receive $16.50 in cash for each share of common
stock they own.
Sabatini claims that the proxy statement failed to disclose the
basis for the $18 per share citing that the company stockholders
are entitled to an accurate description of the process leading up
to the proposed transaction. He also claims that it failed to
disclose all line items used to calculate EBITDA and Unlevered Free
Cash Flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics,
material information that 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.
Craft Brew is a brewing company that brews, brands and markets
American craft beers. Eric Sabatini owns Craft common stock. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Email: rm@maniskas.com
CRAIN CONCRETE: Garcia et al. Seek OT Pay for General Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAVIER GARCIA and J.G., a minor, by and through his next
friend, JAVIER GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. CRAIN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, LLC and STEVEN
CRAIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00217-LPR (E.D. Ark., February
28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly-situated general laborers an
overtime premium of one and one half times their regular hourly
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as general laborers from
February of 2017 until January of 2020.
Crain Concrete Construction, LLC is a construction operating
company in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake Hoyt, Esq.
Joshua West, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com
west@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
D & A SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in Voeks Suit Shelved
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MEGAN VOEKS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. D & A SERVICES, LLC,
d/b/a IL D & A SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 20-CV-0272 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman granted Plaintiff's motions to stay the
class certification motion and for relief from the local rules.
The Plaintiff brought this putative class action alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To prevent
the Defendants from mooting the action, the plaintiff moves for
class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on
other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015); see also Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663,
672 (2016).
The Plaintiff also moves for relief from local rules requiring
every motion to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and
imposing a briefing schedule. Judge Adelman granted the request and
stayed the plaintiff's class certification motion for Damasco
purposes. No briefing schedule is imposed.
D & A Services is a collection agency.[CC]
DAIRYLAND USA: Denied Bevel Overtime, Meal Breaks, Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Royce Bevel, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dairyland USA Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00803 (S.D. N.Y. Sup., January 30, 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.
Dairyland was a food supplier where Bevel worked as a
delivery-person. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours
per 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. He claims to have worked through his meal breaks despite
being deducted 30 minutes and did not receive wage statements.
[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
DBI SERVICES: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Paid Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as OSCAR DOZIER, individually on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. DBI SERVICES,
LLC., a Foreign Limited Libaility Company, Case No.
3:18-cv-00972-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon Judge Brian J. Davis
entered an order:
1. granting conditional certification of a class consisting
of:
"all hourly-paid Technicians who work/worked for DBI
Services, LLC companywide within the last three years who
were/are required to complete DBI's "Daily Vehicle
Inspection Report" inspection and/or related work before
clocking-in and/or after clocking-out for their scheduled
shifts in weeks where they worked over forty hours and were/
are therefore not compensated at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in one or more workweeks as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act;
2. directing Plaintiff to file on or before March 10, 2020, a
proposed reminder notice. On or before March 24, 2020,
Defendant may file objections to Plaintiff's proposed
reminder notice postcard. Alternatively, on or before March
10, 2020, the parties may file a proposed joint reminder
notice indicating that Defendant has no objections to the
reminder notice;
3. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff (electronically
and in hard copy) no later than March 24, 2020, a complete
list with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of
employment, and e-mail addresses of all hourly-paid
technicians who work/worked for DBI Services, LLC
companywide within the last three years since August 10,
2015, the date the Complaint was filed, who were/are
required to complete DBI's Daily Vehicle Inspection Report
inspection and/or related work and were not paid overtime
premiums for overtime hours worked;
4. directing Plaintiff to transmit the Notice and Consent Form
to potential class members no later than April 24, 2020;
5. directing Potential class members to opt-in no later than
July 24, 2020; and
6. directing the parties to file a joint status report on or
before March 3, 2020, in light of the schedule and the
Court's Order.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied his burden of
demonstrating a reasonable basis for his claim that there are other
similarly situated technicians. The Court adds that DBI technicians
are trained at the same annual meeting and complete the same DVIRs
on the DRI vehicles. Moreover, the technicians are paid hourly and
are required to keep track of their scheduled work. At this stage,
Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that the proposed class is
similarly situated to him.
The Plaintiff brought the Complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly-situated employees, seeking to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs, and
declaratory relief for Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
him at the statutory rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for any overtime hours worked pursuant to the FLSA.[CC]
EASTLAND MALL: Mall Staff Hit Unpaid Overtime, Missing Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kejuana Beaver, Askia Lamar Champion, Oscar Baylor and Desyre
Whitehead, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eastland Mall Holdings, LLC and Group 7
Staffing, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00485 (S.D. Ohio, January
28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
Defendants operate an enclosed shopping mall, Eastland Mall,
located at 2740 Eastland Mall, Columbus, Franklin County where
Beaver, Champion, Baylor and Whitehead worked as administrative
staff, security staff, maintenance and security staff at Eastland
Mall.
Eastland allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek and failed to provide them with
copies of their paystubs. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Tel: (614) 610-4134
Fax: (614) 547-3614
Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
ECLIPSE SENIOR: Taylor Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Janet Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eclipse Senior Living, Inc,
Eclipse Portfolio Operations LLC, and EC OPCO CA Partner V LLC,
Case No. 20-cv-00190 (S.D. Cal., January 29, 2020), seeks redress
for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, failure to pay vested
vacation wages upon separation from employment, actual damages, all
wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest
and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, California labor laws and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.
Taylor was formerly employed as a nurse by Eclipse at the Grossmont
Gardens senior living facility in La Mesa, California, from
approximately March 2019 to September 2019. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Tel: (415) 421-7100
Fax: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
mlim@schneiderwallace.com
whogg@schneiderwallace.com
EDWARD ZENGEL: Olker Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Olker, and other similarly situated individuals v. EDWARD
ZENGEL & SON EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00355 (M.D. Fla., Feb.
28, 2020), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid regular
and overtime wages, and for retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked six days per week more than 40 hours every
week without being properly compensated for regular hours, and for
overtime hours at the rate of time-and-a-half their regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a "local express mail delivery
driver."
EDWARD ZENGEL EXPRESS is a private motor carrier, providing
transportation of regular mail, express mail, and packages, to the
United States Postal Service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Settlement Approval to Face Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the approval
of a $380.5 million settlement of data breach class action claims
against Equifax Inc. will be challenged in the Eleventh Circuit.
Class member objectors Ted Frank and David Watkins filed a notice
of appeal on Feb. 10 in the Northern District of Georgia, and will
ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to overturn
the settlement approval, class certification, and $77.5 million in
attorneys' fees.
The objectors told the trial court in November 2019 that the
settlement is unfair and creates conflicts of interest among the
147 million class members. [GN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rabinowitv Disputes Credit Report
------------------------------------------------------
Bella Rabinowitv on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,
Bank of America Corporation and General Motors Financial Company,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00496, (E.D. N.Y., January 29,
2020) seeks statutory damages due to systematic and willful
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Rabinowitv disputes erroneous trade lines associated with Bank of
America Corporation and GM Financial accounts that appeared on her
credit report directly with Equifax Information Services, LLC on or
about November 6, 2019. She subsequently filed a statement of
dispute with Equifax Information Services on November 26, 2019.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that "a
recent decision by a Washington federal district court caught my
eye because it involved a circumstance I often see -- a new
development in the law results in a class action lawsuit being
filed before the defendant has an opportunity to change its
practices in response to the change (or clarification) in the law.
This decision highlights several arguments that defendants can make
in defending against class certification in this type of case."
Morrison v. Esurance Ins. Co., 2020 WL 583824 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6,
2020), arises from a Washington Supreme Court decision concluding
that an insurer was not permitted to deny a claim for personal
injury protection benefits under an automobile insurance policy
solely based on a finding of maximum medical improvement. The
court's denial of class certification focused on two issues: the
injunctive relief claim, and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3).
First, the court found that a Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking
injunctive relief was inappropriate for two reasons: (1) the claim
for monetary relief was not incidental to the claim for injunctive
or declaratory relief; and (2) the defendant had brought its
procedures into compliance with the new decision, and thus "[a]ny
request for injunctive relief is therefore moot" because "Plaintiff
has failed to show any likelihood of the harm reoccurring." Id. at
*5. This is a key argument that defendants can make when a putative
class action attempts to capitalize on a recent development in the
law and the defendant has brought its procedures into compliance.
Second, the court found that certification of a damages class under
Rule 23(b)(3) was not appropriate because superiority was not
satisfied. The court first concluded that because individual suits
could seek between $10,000 and $35,000 plus the possibility of
treble damages and attorney's fees, this "will provide substantial
incentive for class members and their attorneys to prosecute claims
individually." Id. at *6. This can be a strong argument,
particularly where the defendant can show that plaintiffs'
attorneys frequently file individual suits making claims similar to
those alleged in the putative class action.
The court also concluded that the superiority requirement was not
satisfied because determining who was in the class (which
ultimately would have to be done in order to determine who is bound
by any final judgment) would require mini-trials. This was because
the insurer's claim denial letters were not a sufficient basis to
determine whether benefits were denied, or whether the denial was
based on maximum medical improvement. The Ninth Circuit does not
have a separate ascertainability requirement, but this is a good
example of how a defendant can effectively make an argument about
the class definition under the superiority criterion for class
certification.[GN]
EVENFLO CO: Lieff Cabraser Files Class Suit Over Booster Car Seats
------------------------------------------------------------------
The national plaintiffs' law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, along with Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd. and Andrus
Wagstaff, PC, announce the filing of a federal fraud and deceptive
marketing class action lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs who purchased Evenflo's Big Kid
Booster car seats. The complaint alleges that the widely and
aggressively marketed seats are unsuitable and unsafe for smaller
children and do not significantly reduce accident injury risks. The
lawsuit seeks to put an end to Evenflo's improper marketing and
sales tactics that put profits above the safety of American
children.
According to multiple reports, Evenflo has known since at least
2008 – and potentially earlier - that its Big Kid Booster Seat is
not suitable for children under forty pounds and four years of age,
nor does it appreciably reduce the risk of serious injury or death
from side-impact collisions. Nevertheless, Evenflo aggressively
markets the Big Kid Booster as the "the best way to minimize
injuries to your child," and claims that it will "greatly reduce
the risk of serious injury to your child in a crash." As alleged in
the complaint, Evenflo knew, even while it was making
representations to consumers about the professed safety of its Big
Kid Booster, that the seats were not safe, should not be used by
children under forty pounds, and provided little to no side-impact
protection.
As further alleged in the complaint, Evenflo misled consumers into
believing that the Big Kid Booster were "SIDE IMPACT TESTED" and
provided side-impact protection without revealing that those
representations were virtually meaningless; Evenflo designed its
own side-impact tests and yet failed even those lax and forgiving
standards. Recently released video shows that those tests
unmistakably demonstrated that a child seated in its booster could
be in grave danger in side-impact crashes.
The complaint notes that while Evenflo aggressively marketed the
Big Kid Boosters to U.S. consumers as safe for children who weigh
as little as 30 pounds, Evenflo told consumers in Canada that a
child that weighed less than 40 pounds risked "SERIOUS INJURY or
DEATH" using the same Big Kid Booster. Evenflo failed to disclose
this material safety information to consumers in the United States.
Evenflo's Big Kid Boosters have been recalled three times in
Canada, most recently in 2012, for misrepresenting that the booster
seats were safe for children weighing 30 pounds or less.
The complaint further details that Evenflo sews a tag onto its Big
Kid Boosters prominently labeling them as "SIDE IMPACT TESTED
[sic]," and claimed that its "rigorous test simulates the
government side-impact tests conducted for automobiles." These
labels and marketing claims misled customers to believe that the
Big Kid Boosters provided side-impact protection without revealing
that those representations were baseless.
"When aggressive marketing puts children's lives at risk, it is
manifestly unacceptable," notes Lieff Cabraser partner Mark P.
Chalos, who represents the plaintiffs. "This lawsuit is being filed
not just to stop Evenflo's allegedly deceptive sales and marketing
tactics, but to protect children and families across the U.S."
Evenflo has reportedly settled multiple lawsuits with the families
of children severely injured in accidents while using the Big Kid
Booster going back to at least 2009. One young girl, then three
years old and weighing just under 37 pounds, was paralyzed from the
neck down while seated in a Big Kid Booster Seat during a
side-impact collision. Two other children of similar weight have
also sued Evenflo alleging their Big Kid Booster failed to protect
them in side-impact accidents. One reportedly suffered a traumatic
brain injury and the other suffered internal decapitation, which is
the separation of the spinal column from the skull base.
"If consumers had known the truth about Evenflo's false safety
claims, they would never have purchased or used Evenflo Big Kid
Boosters," notes Gary M. Klinger of Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd., who
also represents the plaintiffs. "Instead, Evenflo actively and
aggressively marketed the boosters in a way that concealed all of
this vital information from consumers -- wrong on top of wrong in a
shocking threat to children's lives."
The lawsuit includes claims for violations of state and federal
consumer protection laws, unfair competition laws, fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties,
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and seeks relief
including an order enjoining Evenflo from continuing its unlawful
conduct, a permanent injunction requiring Evenflo to recall all Big
Kid Booster seats still in use, to cease selling the seats as
designed or stop all deceptive labeling and marketing thereof,
disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains derived from its unlawful
conduct, and actual and compensatory damages.
Andrus Wagstaff partner Kim Dougherty, who also represents the
plaintiffs, noted, "This corporation must be held accountable for
misleading unknowing parents and causing serious injuries to
children nationwide."
Consumers who have purchased Evenflo Big Kid Booster seats and
would like to learn additional information or share their
experiences can visit lieffcabraser.com/evenflo.
Contacts:
Mark P. Chalos
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Tel: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger
Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd.
Tel: (773) 545-9607
E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
[GN]
EVONIK CORP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA, Silva Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Silva and Rhonda Allen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EVONIK CORPORATION, PRESIDENT OF
EVONIK CORPORATION, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EVONIK CORPORATION,
EVONIK INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
2:20-cv-02202 (D.N.J., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against the
fiduciaries of Evonik Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan for breaches
of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
The Plan confers tax benefits on participating employees to
incentivize saving for retirement. The Plan had over a billion
dollars in assets under management as of the end of 2017, and
nearly a billion dollars in assets at the end of 2018 that were/are
entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. As a large plan,
the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and
expenses that were charged against participants' investments.
The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses
or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment
option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the
Plaintiffs contend. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants
abdicated their fiduciary oversight, allowing Prudential Bank and
Trust to lard the Plan with funds managed by the Trustee and/or its
affiliates. The Plaintiffs insist these Plan funds charged
excessive fees.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period
(February 28, 2014, through the date of judgment) the Defendants,
as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under the
ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories.
To make matters worse, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest
cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and
failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or
separate accounts as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan,
despite their lower fees, the Plaintiffs argue. The Defendants'
mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and
beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty, in violation of the ERISA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options
offered by the Plan.
Evonik is the Plan sponsor with a principal place of business in
Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone: (717) 233-4101
Fax (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
FEDCAP REHABILITATION: King Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold King, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class v. FEDCAP REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., and WILDCAT
SERVICE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01784 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28,
2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime
compensation resulting from time shaving and rounding hours down,
unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to perform work for third
party companies under the Defendants' job placement program in
January 2014.
According to the Plaintiff, for his last position, his schedule was
six days per week from 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM for at least 57 hours per
week. The Plaintiff was required to work throughout his shifts
without any meal breaks. Despite the Plaintiff not having any
breaks throughout the entirety of his shift, the Defendants
automatically deducted an hour from the Plaintiff's wages,
resulting in unpaid regular and overtime wages, says the
complaint.
The Defendants operate a recruiting not-for-profit company for job
insertion of New York City ex-offenders, disconnected youth, and
public assistance recipients.[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
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
FRANCHISE WORLD: Bittner Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------
Sheli Bittner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Franchise World Headquarters, LLC, Doctor's
Associates LLC and Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, LTD,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00222, (D. Ariz., January 30, 2020),
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants collectively own, operate, oversee and control the
"Subway" brand of restaurants for the United States. Bittner claims
to have received SMS Ads from the Defendants without his express
written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 357-2107
Fax: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
FRESH EXPRESS INC: Brady Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Brady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fresh Express Incorporated, Defendant, Case
No. 2020CH01090 (Ill. Cir., January 28, 2020), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Brady worked for Fresh Express and was required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He alleges
that Fresh Express improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data
to a third-party company without informed consent. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Tel: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
FRITO-LAY NORTH: Ithier Sues Over Misleading Potato Chips Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Ithier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-01810
(S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their
cheddar and sour cream potato chips purporting to be flavored
without artificial flavor.
The relevant front label representations include the brand,
"Cheddar & Sour Cream," "Flavored," a slab of cheddar cheese and a
dollop of sour cream. The ingredient list on the back shows that
"Cheddar & Sour Cream Seasoning" contains the named foods cheddar
cheese and sour cream, but also "Artificial Flavors."
The Plaintiff contends that the only way that the front label could
avoid declaring the presence of the artificial flavors is if it
does not. If a product contains "any artificial flavor which
simulates, resembles or reinforces the characterizing flavor," it
has to be identified in the flavor designation on the front label.
Based on flavor composition analysis of the Products, the
artificial flavor consists of compounds associated with butter
flavor. Because butter flavor is known as enhancing and boosting
the flavor of cheddar cheese, it is misleading to not designate the
Products as "Artificially Flavored Cheddar & Sour Cream," the
Plaintiff asserts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knows consumers will pay
more for the Product because the label does not state "artificially
flavored." The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is
designed to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers. The
Defendant has sold more of the Product and at higher prices per
unit than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. The
value of the Product that plaintiff purchased and consumed was
materially less than its value as represented by defendant.
Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Products or would have paid less for it, says the
complaint. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$2.79 per 8.5 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells cheddar and sour cream potato chips purporting to
be flavored without artificial flavor contributing to the
characterizing flavor under their Ruffles brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
GENERAL MILLS: Underpays Food Production Employees, Fravel Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES FRAVEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01094-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, February 28, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly-situated food
production employees, alleges that the Defendant did not pay them
for time spent donning and doffing their boots and hairnet, walking
through the boot scrubber, washing their hands, or for the
associated travel time. They were also not paid overtime
compensation for all of hours worked in excess of 40 each
workweek.
Mr. Fravel was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-based food
production employee.
General Mills Operations, LLC is a food production facility
operator in Wellston, Ohio. It is a for-profit limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
HANNA LAW: Judgment as to All Counts in McClain FDCPA Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THEODORE McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALEN
PATRICK HANNA, I; HANNA LAW PLLC; HANNA LLP, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 19-1726 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's amended judgment for
McClain as to all counts in his complaint.
Ordinarily, a plaintiff can't have his case and settle it too.
Theodore McClain thinks otherwise. McClain settled his case --
without reservation. Yet now he wants to represent a putative
class action in the same case.
Less than a year ago, McClain sued Dalen Hanna and Hanna's two law
firms under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and an analogous
Michigan statute. McClain brought both individual and class
claims.
Within a week, Hanna offered McClain a settlement under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 68. That settlement allowed judgment to be
entered in McClain's favor "as to all counts" of his complaint. It
also gave McClain his full damages (both actual and statutory) as
well as his litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Four
days later, McClain accepted the settlement offer but
simultaneously filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification
-- apparently to preempt a mootness ruling. Even so, the district
court found the class claims to be moot and entered a judgment
dismissing both the individual and class claims.
Yet McClain then pointed out that the court should have entered
judgment in his favor since that's what the settlement said. So
the district court entered an amended judgment for McClain as to
all counts in the Plaintiff's complaint. The appeal followed.
According to McClain, the question is whether his settlement mooted
his class claims. But there's an initial problem with that
question: the district court didn't dismiss any of McClain's claims
as moot. In the end, the court entered judgment in his favor as to
all counts. And it did so based on a settlement agreement in which
McClain failed to reserve any right to pursue his class claims on
appeal. As a result, the Court need not reach the mootness
question.
For over a century, federal courts have followed a simple rule:
parties may not challenge a judgment to which they have consented.
Although people sometimes describe this rule as "jurisdictional" or
related to "standing," in reality the consent waives any challenge
on the merits. Of course, parties may preserve their right to
challenge the judgment if they reserve that right unequivocally.
But if they fail to do so, they may not challenge issues within the
scope of the judgment.
The sister circuits have uniformly applied these principles to
putative class actions. If a named plaintiff settles his case and
does not expressly reserve any right to pursue his class claims,
then he may not pursue those claims on appeal.
As applied in the case, that rule leads to a straightforward
result. In their settlement agreement, the parties agreed to have
judgment entered for McClain as to all counts in his complaint.
The settlement doesn't except any claims or interests from the
judgment. Nor would it make much sense to read the settlement that
way since the first three "counts" of the complaint are "class
claims." So when McClain agreed to judgment on "all counts," that
judgment unambiguously includes his class claims. Indeed, other
courts have reached the same conclusion based on similar language
in settlement agreements. Thus, McClain has waived any further
interest in his class claims and may not pursue those claims on
appeal, rules the Sixth Circuit.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/xDsUqa from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: Curtis Warner -- cwarner@warner.legal -- WARNER LAW FIRM,
LLC, Corning, New York, for Appellant.
Dalen P. Hanna -- contact@hannallp.com -- HANNA LAW, PLLC,
Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Curtis Warner, WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC, Corning, New York,
for Appellant.
Dalen P. Hanna, HANNA LAW, PLLC, Birmingham, Michigan, for
Appellees.
HOLIDAY CVS: Valiente Sues for Illegal Termination Over Leave
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Valiente and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Holiday CVS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-20382 (S.D. Fla.,
January 28, 2020) seeks reinstatement, compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, front pay, back-pay, prejudgment interest,
injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Family and Medical Leave Act.
Valiente began working for CVS on or about the year 1999 and was
fired on January 29, 2018, as a manager for a CVS in Miami-Dade
County. He has an autistic child who requires medical care. He
applied for a leave to seek medical care for his child's condition.
CVS approved of his leave but eventually terminated him for his
absences. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Costales, Esq.
GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (877) 389-7395
(561) 264-6797
Fax: (305) 375-9511
HORIZON HOSPITALITY: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jelani Johnson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HORIZON HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; and NIMISH PATEL,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00937-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought
for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the
FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked over 40
per workweek at 1.5 times the regular hourly rates.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at one or more of the
Defendants' hotels.
Horizon owns and operates hotels in Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio,
Kentucky, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Mississippi and employs
individuals in each state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
John L. Mays, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, Suite 2600
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-873-8000
Email: dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
HORIZON TRUST: Threadford Seeks to Recover Losses Under ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Threadford and William Holmes, on behalf of the McKinney
Communications Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated v.
HORIZON TRUST AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, N.A., RODDY McKINNEY, and
JANICE McKINNEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00188 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 28, 2020),
is brought to recover certain losses under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.
The lawsuit is brought against (i) Horizon Trust and Investment
Management, N.A., the trustee for the McKinney Communications
Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan"), which
acquired shares of McKinney Communications Corporation in 2016, and
(ii) selling shareholders Roddy McKinney and Janice McKinney (the
"Selling Shareholders"). The lawsuit seeks to recover the losses
incurred by the Plan and, thus, by each individual account in the
Plan held by Plan participants, resulting from Horizon's engaging
in, and causing the Plan to engage in, prohibited transactions
under the ERISA, and breaching its fiduciary duties under ERISA,
and the Selling Shareholders' participation in these violations.
McKinney was a privately held company and a party in interest to
the Plan. In November 2016, the Plan purchased 1,000,000 shares of
McKinney's common stock, representing 100% of the outstanding
shares, for $65,483,225, which was financed by a loan from McKinney
of $65,483,225 bearing interest at the prime rate of the lender,
which for 2016, 2017 and 2018 averaged 1.95% , to be repaid over 25
years (the "ESOP Transaction" or "Transaction"). Horizon
represented the Plan and its participants as Trustee in the ESOP
Transaction. Horizon had sole and exclusive authority to negotiate
the terms of the ESOP Transaction on the Plan's behalf.
The ERISA prohibits a plan fiduciary, here Horizon, from causing a
plan, here the Plan, to engage in a sale or exchange of any
property, here McKinney stock, with a party in interest, here the
Selling Shareholders Roddy McKinney and Janice McKinney, as took
place in the ESOP Transaction, says the complaint. The stock and
loan transactions between the Plan and the parties in interest were
authorized by Horizon in its capacity as Trustee for the Plan. The
Plaintiffs insist that Horizon caused the Plan to engage in
prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA.
The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan.
Defendant Horizon provides investment management services, offering
estate and retirement planning, financial management, and trust
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
333 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 2736
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 995-7143
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and –
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
HP INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of HP Inc. (HPQ). There is no cost
to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until
the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.
HP Inc. (HPQ)
Class Period: February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 20, 2020
According to the filed complaint, defendants knew that HP's
"four-box" model for measuring its supplies business was severely
deficient and not a strong predictor of supplies demand and
outcomes because HP lacked telemetry data from its commercial
printers and had to use unreliable and stagnant market share data
to develop assumptions for the four-box model. The complaint
further alleges that defendants knew the lack of telemetry data for
commercial printing was a critical shortcoming of the four-box
model because HP possessed telemetry data on its personal printing
side and knew it was a necessary element for an accurate
understanding of the supplies channel. As a result, the supplies
inventory in the Company's channel exceeded demand by at least $100
million, and HP's supplies revenue growth was grossly inflated.
Learn about your recoverable losses in HPQ:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form?id=5504&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Contact:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN]
J & J CUSTOM: Robinson Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antwan Robinson, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees v. J & J CUSTOM BUILDERS,
LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and JEREMY JAMES,
Individually, Case No. 3:20-cv-00175 (N.D. Miss., Feb. 28, 2020),
is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
to seek damages for unpaid overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was not an independent contractor for the purposes of
the FSLA and was, therefore, entitled to overtime at 1.5 times his
base rate of pay for all time he worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Antwan Robinson worked for the Defendants.
The Defendants constitute a construction company in the Nashville,
Tennessee metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Phone: (615) 851-1776
Fax: (615) 859-7033
Email: nina@poncelaw.com
JEDSON ENGINEERING: Wiggins Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JEREMY WIGGINS, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated v. JEDSON ENGINEERING, INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00354-DCLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), Mr. Wiggins asks the Court
for an order:
1. granting conditional certification and authorizing notice
(by mail, email, and text) to:
"all employees Jedson paid at the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek
(or straight time for overtime) in the last 3 years
(Straight Time Workers)";
2. approving Notice and Consent forms;
3. authorizing a reminder notice;
4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact Straight Time Workers
by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice forms return
as undeliverable;
5. directing Jedson to produce to Class Counsel the Straight
Time Workers' contact information within 10 days; and
6. authorizing a 60-day "opt-in" notice period.
Jedson bills itself as a lead provider of engineering, procurement,
and construction management services serving the consumer product,
chemical, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, and pulp and paper
industries.
To achieve its business objectives, Jedson hires personnel,
including Wiggins and the Straight Time Workers, that it staffs to
various companies throughout the United States. Jedson pays some of
these employees "straight time for overtime" and classifies them as
exempt employees.
Wiggins alleges that the Straight Time Workers were victims of a
common policy or plan (Jedson's straight time for overtime plan) in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713 352-1100
Facsimile: 713 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
tjones@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
- and -
Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
MIKEL & HAMILL, PLLC
620 Lindsay Street, Suite 200
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Telephone: 423 541-5400
Facsimile: 423-541-5401
E-mail: dmikel@mhemploymentlaw.com
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Howard Smith Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased of
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) securities between January 26,
2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Jeld-Wen
investors have until April 20, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Jeld-Wen investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On October 15, 2018, after the market closed, Jeld-Wen reported a
$76.5 million charge for third quarter 2018 related to ongoing
litigation concerning Jeld-Wen's anticompetitive behavior. The
Company also announced the resignation of its Chief Financial
Officer, Brooks Mallard.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.03, or 19%, to
close at $17.28 per share on October 16, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Jeld-Wen was engaged in anticompetitive conduct through a
price-fixing conspiracy with another door manufacturer to
artificially increase or maintain prices of interior molded doors;
and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.
If you purchased Jeld-Wen securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/
[GN]
LELY NORTH AMERICA: Kirschbaum Sues Over Defective Astronaut A4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Kirschbaum, Jared Kruger, and Donna and Robert Koon, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated v. LELY NORTH
AMERICA, INC., LELY INDUSTRIES N.V., LELY INTERNATIONAL N.V., and
LELY HOLDING B.V., Case No. 0:20-cv-00629 (D. Minn., Feb. 28,
2020), seeks legal remedies for the Plaintiffs in the hopes of
obtaining the compensation they rightfully and legally entitled to
recover for the property damaged and pecuniary loss they suffered
as a result of the acts and omission of the Defendants regarding
their automatic milking product, Lely Astronaut A4.
According to the complaint, Lely systematically misuse the trust
endowed to it by dairy farmers whom it uniformly represented that
the only way for them grow their businesses, remain viable and
combat ever-increasing labor costs is to "switch towards automated
milking." The "automated milking" solution proposed by Lely is the
Lely Astronaut A4-–an automatic milking system purportedly
designed to optimize quality milk yield in a cow-friendly, hygienic
an efficient way--which was designed, manufacture, marketed, sold,
distributed and installed by the Defendants.
The Defendants uniformly promised to dairy farmer that the cleaning
and pre-stimulation performed by the Lely Astronaut A4 provides
"40% more effective cleaning and stimulation as compared to
conventional situations" when, in actuality, it only brushed all
four teats of each cow a mere 67% of the time and, even then,
failed to remove a staggering 10-20% of the bacteria present, or
equally dry each teat, the Plaintiffs say. They add that Lely also
concealed its knowledge that there is a 2-5% teat cup attachment
failure rate.
After inducing the dairy farmers to purchase the Lely Astronaut A4
robots, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants delivered a
product that was defectively designed, was not free from defects in
material and workmanship, failed to conform to express ad implied
warranties of the Defendants, and failed to perform as uniformly
advertised, marketed and represented by the Defendants. AS a result
of the misconduct in which the Defendants engaged, numerous dairy
farmers have been seriously injured, many of whom are on the brink
of financial ruin, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are dairy farmers, who purchased the A4 robots.
Lely is an "international" business in the agricultural
sector.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William R. Sieben, Esq.
Matthew J. Barber, Esq.
SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN
5120 IDS Center
80 S. 8th Street, #5120
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2246
Phone: (612) 344-0305
Email: bsieben@schwebel.com
- and -
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
Jillian R. Dent, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
wilders@stuevesiegel.com
dent@stuevesiegel.com
- and –
Arend R. Tensen, Esq.
CULLENBERG & TENSEN, PLLC
199 Heater Road, Suite 2
Lebanon, NH 03766
Phone: (603) 448-7100
Email: tensen@nhvt-injurylaw.com
- and –
Daniel C. Perrone, Esq.
PERRONE LAW PLLC
2136 Victory Boulevard
Staten Island, NY 10314
Phone: (646) 470-9244
Email: dcp@theperronefirm.com
LITTLE HANDS: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Smith, Mary Jo O'Brien, and Shania Pauley, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. LITTLE HANDS BIG HEARTS
CHILDCARE and CRYSTAL DAVIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00171-MWM (S.D. Ohio,
Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and minimum wage under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs are working more than 40 hours in a week, but are
not being paid the legally required amount for their overtime hours
and/or not being paid the statutory minimum wage, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendants.
Little Hands Big Hearts is an Ohio licensed childcare center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Phone: (513) 943-5678
Fax: (513) 943-6669
Email: stephen@finneylawfirm.com
matt@finneylawfirm.com
LITTLE ROCK, AR: Class Action Against LRSD Resolved
---------------------------------------------------
KATV reports that people fighting for racial equality in schools
celebrated a win on Feb. 11.
A class-action lawsuit against Little Rock School District
Superintendent Mike Poore has reached a resolution.
To settle the lawsuit, the LRSD agreed to make some changes to the
way they discipline students.
"They've committed to some improvements that I think will really
help stem the arrest and suspension of African American students in
particular," attorney Chris Burks said.
Burks has been representing families and students in this lawsuit.
"What happened to their sons and daughters shouldn't happen to
people in the future now," he said.
Burks said black students in the district have been arrested and
suspended more often than their white peers.
Now the LRSD has settled the lawsuit.
"It's a proud moment, because the district is really committed to
saying, 'that's not right,'" Burks said.
The district has agreed to do three things at the new Southwest
High School: make peer mediation available, hire social workers,
train staff in prevention, intervention, and treatment protocols.
"Instead of having the suspension, instead of the arrest, we're
going to refer you to the social worker," he said.
Burks said these programs will help the students and stop the
school-to-prison pipeline.
"If even one student doesn't get arrested out of this, if even it
could make a difference in one life, that's great," he said. "Then
it's been worth it."
But Burks admitted these programs won't solve systemic racism.
"We can't change people's hearts and minds," he said. "There will
still be people with racist intentions out there, so we always have
to do better."
Burks said the district is making these changes to Southwest High
because students in that attendance zone have been suspended and
arrested the most.
The class-action lawsuit is also against several Pulaski County
juvenile intake officers. That suit is ongoing. They're asking the
county to consider alternatives to detention.
KATV will update this story with a statement from Superintendent
Poore.
Superintendent Poore released the following statement: "I think it
really honors the work we've been doing at J.A . Fair and
McClellan. I feel pretty good about the work already done and then
where we're headed to Southwest." [GN]
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Store Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Alminiana, Rebecca McPhee, Stacey Pflug, Katie Shook and Iris
Tirado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00010, (W.D. N.C., January 30, 2020), seeks an award of
unpaid wages and liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, attendant penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and various state labor statutes.
Lowe's is a retail company specializing in home improvement with a
chain of retail stores in the United States and Canada. Plaintiffs
are non-exempt store employees working in various stores in the
U.S. They claim that Lowe's misclassified certain bonus payments as
discretionary and failed to include such bonus payments when
calculating its non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Mills, Esq.
BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A.
2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27608
Phone: (919) 782-1441
Email: jmills@bdppa.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
jthompson@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
LUCKIN COFFEE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming April
13, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of Luckin Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: LK)
securities between November 13, 2019 and January 31, 2020 inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Luckin investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information here or contact
Charles H. Linehan
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
Tel: 310-201-9150
Toll-Free: 888-773-9224
E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
Website: http://www.glancylaw.com/
On January 31, 2020, Muddy Waters Research ("Muddy Waters")
published an anonymous report alleging that Luckin "had evolved
into a fraud by fabricating financial and operating numbers
starting in [the] 3rd quarter 2019." Among other allegations, Muddy
Waters claims that the "[n]umber of items per store
per day was inflated by at least 69% in 2019 3Q and 88% in 2019 4Q"
and that "Luckin inflated its net selling price per item by at
least RMB 1.23 or 12.3%."
On this news, Luckin's share price fell $3.91, or nearly 11%, to
close at $32.49 per share on January 31, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that certain of Luckin's financial performance metrics,
including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item,
advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from "other
products" were inflated; (2) that Luckin's financial results thus
overstated the Company's financial health and were consequently
unreliable; and (3) that, as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Luckin securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 13, 2020
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
[GN]
LUCKIN COFFEE: Vincent Wong Notes of April 13 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Luckin Coffee Inc.
(LK). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Luckin Coffee Inc. (LK)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2020
Class Period: November 13, 2019 to January 31, 2020
If you suffered a loss, contact:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/luckin-coffee-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=5500&wire=1
Allegations against LK include that: (i) certain of Luckin's
financial performance metrics, including per-store per-day sales,
net selling price per item, advertising expenses, and revenue
contribution from "other products" were inflated; (ii) Luckin's
financial results thus overstated the Company's financial health
and were consequently unreliable; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.
Contact:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel: 212.425.1140
Fax: 866.699.3880
E-mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]
LUCKIN COFFEE: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Luckin Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: LK)
between November 13, 2019 and January 31, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
To join the class action, click
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=luckin-coffee-inc&id=2174
or contact:
Sophie Zhang, Esq.
Zhang Investor Law
Toll-free at 800-991-3756
E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to (1) certain of Luckin's financial
performance metrics, including per-store per-day sales, net selling
price per item, advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from
"other products" were inflated; (2) Luckin's financial results thus
overstated the Company's financial health and were consequently
unreliable; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your
choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. [GN]
MALLINCKRODT: Marietta City Sues Over Seizure Drug Price Hike
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the city of Marietta, Georgia, is the latest to
file suit over the sky-high pricing of an infant seizure medication
that has triggered no fewer than three other class action
complaints across the country. Marietta, a city 20 miles north of
Atlanta with 61,000 residents, said in its proposed class action
that U.K. pharmaceutical company Mallinckrodt has hiked the price
of its infant seizure drug Acthar to more than $39,000 per 5 mm
vial. [GN]
MARINEMAX INC: Brabender to Recover Unpaid Commissions, Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Brabender, on behalf of himself, and a class consisting
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Marinemax, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00536 (E.D. N.Y., January 30, 2020),
seeks to recover overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week, unpaid compensation and sales
commissions, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.
Marinemax operates a marine dealership where Brabender worked as a
commissioned sales representative. Brabender claims unpaid sales
commissions due at the rate of 20% as stipulated by his commission
agreement, unpaid overtime and minimum wages.
Plaintiff are represented by:
Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
Christopher K. Collota, Esq.
Ryan T. Biesenbach, Esq.
ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
Bohemia, NY 11716
Tel: (631) 589-7242
Fax: (631) 563-7475
Email: SZabell@laborlawsny.com
ccollota@laborlawsny.com
rbiesenbach@laborlawsny.com
MELTWATER NEWS: Sales Rep Sues Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Strobing, Gavriel Reichman, and Nikia Lenef, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Meltwater News US, INC. and Meltwater News US 1, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-10181 (D. Mass., January 29, 2020), seeks redress
for missed meal/rest breaks in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and various state labor statutes.
Meltwater is a digital media intelligence company that sells media
intelligence products to business clients nationwide. Plaintiffs
worked for Meltwater as Sales Representatives.
Sales Representatives are required to log-in to Meltwater's
computer system and is used as basis for their work time. However,
they are not paid for "off-the-clock" work/time, or required work
when they are logged out of the system, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 231-6777
Facsimile: (617) 607-3261
Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com
- and -
Molly J. Frandsen, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
E-mail: mfrandsen@outtengolden.com
NESTLE USA: Bid to Dismiss Duncan-Watts FLSA/OMFWSA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case, Arnetta Duncan-Watts, Plaintiff, v.
Nestle USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19 CV 01437 (N.D.
Ohio).
Plaintiff Duncan-Watts filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated individuals against Defendants Nestle
USA and Nestle Prepared Foods), asserting overtime violations under
both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). On Aug. 29, 2019, the Plaintiff
filed a first amended collective and class action complaint, which
again asserted overtime violations under both the FLSA and Ohio
law.
The Defendants are subsidiaries of Nestle S.A., the world's largest
food and beverage company. Nestle trains its employees to fully
adhere to the principles of good food hygiene. The Defendants are
regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and are
subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").
In enforcing the FDCA, the FDA has imposed Good Manufacturing
Practices ("GMP") for the manufacturing, packing, and holding of
human food. The GMP has an entire section of regulations for those
working in direct contact with food, food-contact surfaces, and
food packaging materials, including wearing certain outer garments,
gloves, and hairnets. If the Defendants do not comply with the
GMP, they could be held criminally liable.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for approximately 18
years in their Solon, Ohio facility. She was a production
employee, involved in the manufacturing, packaging, and handling of
food. She was non-exempt and paid hourly. Compliance with the GMP
is a component of her job. This included wearing sanitary
clothing, uniforms, pants, shirts, lab coats, hair nets, gloves,
steel-toed shoes, and safety glasses. The Plaintiff would be
unable to complete her job duties unless she was wearing the
sanitary clothing and other protective equipment required by law.
The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek,
including time spent donning and doffing her clothing and walking
to and from the time clock. However, she was not paid for the time
spent donning and doffing or for the associated travel. She was
subject to discipline for "stealing time" if she was "on the clock"
while donning and doffing her sanitary clothing and protective
equipment. As a result of her not being paid for this time, she
was not paid overtime compensation for the hours worked in excess
of 40 each workweek. She was not paid for approximately 10-15
minutes each workday, averaging to 50 minutes to 1 hour and 25
minutes or more of unpaid overtime each week.
The Complaint contains two claims for relief. Count One, brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others that are
similarly situated, is a claim for unpaid overtime and failure to
maintain required records under the FLSA. Count Two, brought by
the plaintiff on behalf herself and all others that are similarly
situated, is a claim for unpaid overtime under the OMFWA.
The matter is now before the Court upon the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. Tehy move to dismiss the Complaint, arguing the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
Plaintiff opposes the motion in its entirety.
Judge Gaughan concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
an FLSA overtime claim against the Defendants. The Plaintiff's
allegations, if accepted as true, could state a plausible claim for
relief. The Plaintiff was a production employee, involved in the
manufacturing, packaging, and handling of food. The Plaintiff
alleges that compliance with FDA regulations was a component of her
job and that it is the Defendants' policy to train its employees to
"fully adhere to the principles of good food hygiene." She alleges
that she could not complete her work unless she was wearing the
sanitary clothing and protective equipment required by law. The
Judge denies this portion of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Gaughan agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff's FLSA
and OMFWSA overtime claims are evaluated in tandem with each other.
Ultimately, however, despite agreeing with the Defendants on this
point of law, because the Judge is finding the Plaintiff's FLSA
claim survives, the Plaintiff's OMFWSA claim survives as well. The
Judge therefore denies this portion of the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gaughan denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/LJJNkX from Leagle.com.
Arnetta Duncan-Watts, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Lalak --
clalak@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher, Hans A. Nilges --
hans@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher, Shannon M. Draher --
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher & Jeffrey J. Moyle --
jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher.
Nestle USA, Inc. & Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Defendants,
represented by Carrie A. Valdez -- cvaldez@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky -- gbrosky@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler & Gregory V. Mersol -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler.
NICK'S MANAGEMENT: Predmore Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Predmore, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. NICK'S MANAGEMENT, INC., NICK'S CLUBS, INC., f/k/a
ADVENTURE PLUS ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a PT'S MEN'S CLUB, and NICK
MEHMETI, Case No. 3:20-cv-00513-X (N.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have their misclassified
exotic dancers as independent contractors rather than employees,
have failed to pay the dancers minimum wage and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 a week, and have
required dancers to pay fees and tip-outs, which constitute
unlawful kick-backs under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer.
Nick's Clubs, Inc., f/k/a Adventure Plus Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a
PT's Men's Club, is an establishment where live topless, semi-nude
or nude dance entertainment is presented to adult members of the
general public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: 817-479-9229
Fax: 817-887-1878
Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 994-5800
OPERA LIMITED: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Opera Limited (OPRA). There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Opera Limited (OPRA)
Class Period: (a) Opera American depositary shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering commenced on or
about July 27, 2018 and/or (b) Opera securities between July 27,
2018 and January 15, 2020,
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 24, 2020
The OPRA lawsuit alleges Opera Limited made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class
period that: (i) Opera's sustainable growth and market opportunity
for its browser applications was significantly overstated; (ii)
Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled loan services
applications and/or businesses relied on predatory lending
practices; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, were reasonably
likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's financial
prospects, especially with respect to its lending applications'
continued availability on the Google Play Store; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' statements were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.
Learn about your recoverable losses in OPRA:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/opera-limited-loss-submission-form?id=5504&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Contact:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN]
PAYLESS CAR: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Airport Rental Car Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley McGlone, writing for Voice of San Diego, reports that a New
Mexico man who rented vehicles at the San Diego International
Airport during trips to San Diego in recent years is suing several
rental car companies over a fee that was deemed illegal by a San
Diego Superior Court judge in December.
The $3.50 fee -- imposed by the Port of San Diego on car companies
at and near the airport in May 2018 -- was meant to last for
decades and pay for a $40 million, 1,600-space parking garage in
Chula Vista near a long planned $1.13 billion bayfront convention
center, hotel, retail and park complex.
But the car companies sued in 2018, arguing it was an unlawful tax
that would not benefit their customers. Superior Court Judge
Katherine Bacal agreed in a recent tentative decision. Bacal said
at a Dec. 4 hearing the Port charge "is not a true user fee and
violates the California Constitution," according to a hearing
transcript. That case is ongoing.
The rental car fee has amassed the Port of San Diego nearly $7.3
million to date, according to Port officials, and remains in place
amid the dispute.
In a Feb. 3 court filing, the Port of San Diego's attorneys pushed
back against efforts by the car companies to recoup funds, arguing,
"Monetary relief, if any, should be left to those with standing to
seek it or to legislative action."
Now, if the court agrees to let the suit proceed, customers who
paid the fee would be able to enter the legal fray and try to get
their money back alongside Jeffrey Garvin, who is suing Payless Car
Rental, Dollar Rent A Car, Fox Rent a Car, Advantage Rent a Car and
others for assessing "a bogus tax on car rentals."
Garvin pointed to the rental car lawsuit against the Port of San
Diego, which includes Dollar's parent company Hertz Corporation, as
evidence "defendants knew when they began imposing this fee that it
was illegal and improper."
"Plaintiff seeks restitution of this illegal fee on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated as well as injunctive
relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to collect these
fees," Garvin's lawsuit says. "Because the tax was not approved by
local voters, it is an unconstitutional tax and thus unlawful and
invalid."
Douglas Sullivan, an attorney for Hertz, said in an email he
expects a court order around Feb. 25 to provide a refund process
for customers of the Enterprise, National and Alamo brands and
Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty brands.
As for Garvin's class action case, Sullivan said, "Dollar has
mistakenly been named, as its customers are already covered by the
claims of Hertz in the Port lawsuit. We do not have comments on
the viability of a federal court action with the claims against
other rental car companies who did not join the Port lawsuit.
However, we note that the rental car companies were required by
unconstitutional actions of the Port to collect the charges, and we
understand that the Port has possession of the charges that the
rental car companies have been forced to collect."
Garvin's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.
It is not clear whether the court will sign off on the class
action, or how it could be impacted if the trial court decision
finding the charge unlawful is finalized and appealed by the Port
of San Diego.
Some public officials first described the garage project as
integral to the bayfront project, but recently downplayed the
potential loss of the rental car fees, and said the garage could
proceed with a different funding source, or could be built at a
later date.
"This decision doesn't stop, change or even slow our forward
progress on our redevelopment plans, which have great momentum and
strong support in the community," Port Chairwoman Anne Moore, who
represents Chula Vista, said in January. [GN]
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces SEPTA Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. PORTOLA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SCOTT GARLAND, MARDI C. DIER, SHELDON
KOENIG, HOLLINGS C. RENTON, JEFFREY W. BIRD, LAURA BREGE, DENNIS
FENTON, JOHN H. JOHNSON, DAVID C. STUMP, and H. WARD WOLFF, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01501 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought on behalf
of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Portola's common stock between January 8, 2019, and
February 26, 2020, inclusive, seeking claims under the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
SEPTA asserts claims against Portola, certain of the Company's
officers, and members of Portola's Board of Directors, including
the Directors that signed the Registration Statement filed in
August 2019 for a public offering of its common stock. The
Company's lead product is Andexxa.
According to the complaint, Portola misleadingly touted Andexxa's
revenues and future prospects, calling it one of the most
successful drug launches in history, touting the "deepening
utilization" and increasing reorder rates of the drug based on the
Company's usage tracking metrics, and hailing the Company's
purportedly exceptional execution on the Andexxa launch as the
catalyst for continued robust revenue growth. Portola's materially
false and misleading statements and omissions inflated the price of
Portola stock, the Plaintiff alleges.
On August 7, 2019, the Company filed a Registration Statement and
Prospectus on Form S-3. On August 12, 2019, Portola announced plans
to offer its common stock in a public offering. The next day,
Portola announced the Offering of 8,035,715 shares of its common
stock to the public at a price of $28.00 per share. In addition,
Portola granted the Offering's underwriters a thirty-day option to
purchase up to an additional 1,205,357 shares from the Company at
the Offering price. In total, the Offering raised gross proceeds of
over $250 million for the Company. As part of the Offering, the
Company filed on August 14, 2019, a Prospectus Supplement on Form
424(b)(5). The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Materials
contained and incorporated by reference false and misleading
statements about the success of the Andexxa launch.
On January 9, 2020, Portola announced global net revenues for
Andexxa of $28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019, falling
drastically short of analysts' consensus estimate of $41 million.
Portola executives admitted that Andexxa demand had flattened due
to utilization reviews and budget scrutiny among the early adopter
hospitals, with later adopting customers still to perform similar
utilization determinations. In addition, the Company disclosed that
it was taking a substantial charge of $5 million for unused and
returned Andexxa product previously recognized as revenue and
incorporated into Portola's revenue growth numbers.
On this news, the Company's share price plummeted by $9.98 per
share, or approximately 40%, to close at $14.76 per share on
January 10, 2020.
As a result of Portola's false and misleading statements and
omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an institutional investor, who purchased Portola
common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.
Portola is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes treatments for thrombosis, other hematologic
disorders, and inflammation. The Company's lead product is Andexxa,
marketed as Ondexxya in Europe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 819-3470
Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
- and -
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
michaelb@blbglaw.com
PRINSCO II LLC: Bunch Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Bunch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Prinsco II, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2020CH01091 (Ill. Cir., January 28, 2020), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Bunch worked for Prinsco and was required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He alleges
that Defendant improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to
a third-party company without informed consent. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Tel: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Rosario Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Rosario, On behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign for Profit
Corporation, Case No. 6:20-cv-00352 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but was not
compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours at a rate
not less than one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant from November 28,
2013, through the present.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is a Foreign for Profit
Corporation, operating a business located, among other locations,
in Seminole county, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ
533 Versailles Dr., 2nd Floor
Maitland, FL 32751
Phone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
Email: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
RIOT GAMES: Proposed $10MM Settlement Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------
Andy Chalk of PC Gamer reports that a proposed settlement was
withdrawn after California's DFEH said plaintiffs may be entitled
to as much as $400 million.
In December, League of Legends studio Riot Games agreed to a $10
million settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against it in
2018, arising from claims of systemic sexism and gender-based
discrimination at the studio. The settlement would be divided
between roughly 1000 women employed by the studio between November
2014 and the settlement's approval by the court.
The situation got a whole lot sticker in January when California's
Department of Fair Employment and Housing got involved, saying that
the plaintiffs were owed a lot more than what they were settling
for—in the neighborhood of $390 million more, in fact.
Riot, naturally, was "dismayed," saying that it had "worked hard to
negotiate with the lawyer representing the class to reach an
agreement that we collectively believe is fair for the class
members." The plaintiffs were also apparently dismayed, not with
the DFEH but with their lawyers, and so they went out and got some
new ones: Genie Harrison, a women's rights attorney who has
previously been involved in the legal actions against disgraced
movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, and California employment lawyer
Joseph Lovretovich. [GN]
SABOR HISPANO: Jurado Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ulbia America Pinela Jurado, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SABOR HISPANO INC., and PATRICIO
FLORES BARRERE and JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ, as individuals, Case No.
2:20-cv-01104 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Although the Plaintiff worked for 84 hours or more per week during
her employment with the Defendants, they did not pay the Plaintiff
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 as a food preparer,
dishwasher, and kitchen worker.
SABOR HISPANO INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of New
York with a principal executive office in Corona, 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
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED: Student A ADA Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed the case, STUDENT A, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03101-WHO (N.D. Cal.), with prejudice.
In the case, five current or former San Francisco Unified School
District ("SFUSD") students sue SFUSD and its Superintendent
Vincent Matthews for systemic violations and failures to provide
students with disabilities with a non-discriminatory and free
appropriate public education ("FAPE") in violation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA").
Four of the Plaintiffs are current or former SFUSD elementary
school students and one is a current SFUSD middle school student.
The Plaintiffs have been diagnosed with specific learning
disabilities ("SLDs") of dyslexia, autism, and speech and language
impairments. These five students challenge the implementation of
SFUSD's duties imposed by the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
They do not challenge official policies of SFUSD; instead, they
challenge alleged practices of SFUSD that result in SFUSD failing
to meet its responsibilities under the IDEA. Their claims are not
limited to alleged failures with respect to specific grades, ages,
school types, or to alleged failures of SFUSD with respect to
students with particular types of disability. Instead, they are
brought on behalf of every disabled student in San Francisco
because the "special education program" at SFUSD is broken and,
therefore, the Plaintiffs seek a total restructuring of the entire
education system as it applies to students with disabilities in San
Francisco.
They allege that SFUSD fails its disabled students by: (1) failing
and refusing to properly and timely identify and evaluate students
who qualify for special education services (Child Find
allegations); (2) failing and refusing to offer appropriate special
educational services needed by students with disabilities, instead
offering pre-set non-individualized limits on the types and
duration of services and accommodations (Offer of Services
allegations); and (3) failing and refusing to provide special
educational services to meet the needs of students by failing to
employ sufficient qualified and trained staff to provide the
services required by students' individualized education programs
("IEPs") (Provision of Services allegations).
The Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint in June
2019. SFUSD and Defendant Matthews moved to dismiss, arguing that
the Plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative
remedies but had not done so and that the claims against Matthews
were redundant of the claims against SFUSD.
Judge Orrick granted that motion, recognizing that while exhaustion
of the individualized due process hearing procedure through the
California Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") Special
Education Division could not provide the system-wide relief sought
by the Plaintiffs (restructuring of the entire special education
program at SFUSD), it would still provide a record regarding how
SFUSD was failing disabled students. In addition, as neither side
addressed whether the second method of exhaustion recognized within
the Ninth Circuit -- through the California Department of
Education's ("CDE") Complaint Resolution Process ("CRP") -- might
be able to address the types of systemic claims raised by the
Plaintiffs and, as a result, exhaustion should be required of that
process, the Plaintiffs were directed to address CRP exhaustion in
their amended complaint. Finally, the Judge found that viewing the
Complaint as a whole, there are no facts alleged to support the
Plaintiffs' position that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion
doctrine apply.
Judge Orrick granted leave to amend and directed the Plaintiffs to
include in any amended complaint facts that plausibly support their
contention that as a result of each of the policies or practices
the Plaintiffs challenge, significant numbers of students are
denied a FAPE. The Plaintiffs will allege facts supporting their
position that exhaustion of each of the policy or practice claims
should be excused under established Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court
precedent.
The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on Oct. 25,
2019. In the FAC -- in response my direction -- the Plaintiffs
include some system-wide allegations regarding SFUSD's failures.
They allege, based on data from the CDE, that the District's
enrollment is below national averages, meaning that there are
hundreds to thousands of students who need services and
accommodations who remain unidentified. These failures, according
to the Plaintiffs, mean that SFUSD is failing to provide the
Plaintiffs and thousands of other students with every sort of
disability with FAPEs required by the IDEA.
The Defendants again move to dismiss raising the same failure to
exhaust and redundant claims arguments. The matter was taken under
submission following the Jan. 15, 2020 hearing.
As for the systemic claims and structural reform, Judge Orrick
finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that
exhaustion should be excused to allow them to challenge the three
broad practices they attack or that the reform they seek is
anything other than increased funding and greater adherence to
existing policies at SFUSD. He emphasizes that while the
Plaintiffs seek a "total restructuring" of the allegedly failing
SFUSD system, they have not alleged facts showing that immediate
court action is necessary to prevent an incipient or ongoing
emergency such that exhaustion should be excused. They have
alleged troubling facts regarding the District's actions with
respect to these five students with a limited set of disabilities.
But there are no facts alleged in the FAC that would allow me to
extrapolate from those limited facts to plausibly suggest the total
failure of SFUSD's special education system across all grades and
with respect to all disabilities. Those facts may exist, but the
Plaintiffs did not allege them despite having been given an
opportunity to do so.
Given the breadth of the Plaintiffs' claims regarding SFUSD's
failures and their request for a restructuring of the whole special
education system, the CRP process appears to be a much better fit
for satisfying the exhaustion requirement. There is no evidence
that the broad claims raised by the Plaintiffs have ever been
presented to CDE through the CRP process, much less that any of
these Plaintiffs has invoked that process.
Having given the Plaintiffs an opportunity to plead more facts
regarding why exhaustion should be excused and why immediate Court
action is necessary, Judge Orrick agrees with SFUSD that the case
must be dismissed. In light of the broad scope of the relief
sought compared to the few and very-limited factual allegations
provided by the Plaintiffs that primarily concern their specific
situations, exhaustion is necessary.
He granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
exhaust. As the Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to allege
additional facts supporting excuse of the exhaustion requirement,
but were unable to do so, the case is dismissed with prejudice,
rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/d73lm3 from Leagle.com.
Student A, by and through Parent A, her Guardian, Student B, by and
through Parent B, his Guardian, Student C, by and through Parent C,
his Guardian, Student D, by and through Parent D, her Guardian &
Student E, by and through Parent E, her Guardian, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Guy Burton Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
-- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Alexis Michelle
Alvarez -- aalvarez@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid At Work, Jinny
Kim -- jkim@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid At Work, Mark T.
Johnson -- mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Shawna L. Parks -- sparks@dralegal.org -- Law Office
of Shawna L. Parks & Travis C. Close -- tclose@schneiderwallace.com
-- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.
San Francisco Unified School District & Vincent Matthews, In His
Official Capacity as the Superintendent for the San Francisco
Unified School District, Defendants, represented by Beatriz Berumen
, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP & Mark S. Posard --
mposard@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.
SASOL LIMITED: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Sasol Limited (SSL). There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Sasol Limited (SSL)
Class Period: March 10, 2015 to January 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2020
The complaint alleges that during the class period Sasol Limited
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Sasol had conducted insufficient due diligence
into and failed to account for multiple issues with, the Lake
Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP"), as well as the true cost of the
project; (ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was
consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs,
and technical issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by
Sasol's top-level management, who engaged in improper and unethical
behavior with respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the
project's oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely
to render the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and
negatively impact the Company's financial results; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in SSL:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/sasol-limited-loss-submission-form?id=5504&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Contact:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN]
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Blackfish Class Action for $65MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathleigh Winningham, writing for Clickorlando.com, reports that
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. has settled a class-action lawsuit for
$65 million related to the 2013 documentary "Blackfish."
The lawsuit, filed by a group of shareholders in 2014, accused
SeaWorld executives of violating the Securities Exchange Act by
making false or misleading statements about how the film was
impacting park attendance.
According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Feb. 11, the company will make the payout to cover the claims as
well as the costs of administration and legal fees.
Despite reaching a settlement, SeaWorld did not admit any
wrongdoing. [GN]
SHUTTERFLY INC: Wants Apollo Acquisition Deal Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Shutterfly Inc. on Feb. 10 asked a Delaware
federal judge to toss a proposed class action alleging the company
withheld information regarding its $2.7 billion acquisition by
private equity giant Apollo Global Management Inc., saying the suit
misrepresents public disclosures made about the deal. [GN]
SIKES LAW: Gentry Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
RANDI GENTRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCOT SIKES and the LAW OFFICES OF SCOT
SIKES, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00036-CDL (M.D. Ga., February
28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week and also failed to keep accurate time and pay records as
mandated by FLSA.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid employee
from September 2008 through August 2018 in Muscogee County,
Georgia.
Law Offices of Scot Sikes, also known as Sikes Law Firm, is a
domestic limited liability corporation, which operates and conducts
business in Muscogee, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adian Miller, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan P.A.
191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 496-7332
Facsimile: (404) 496-7428
E-mail: armiller@forthepeople.com
SIMON'S AGENCY: Hassine Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ESTEFANIA HASSINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SIMON'S AGENCY, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-09031-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.)., the
Plaintiff will move the Court for an order granting Plaintiff's
motion to certify class.
Simon's Agency offers debt recovery and collections services for
revenue cycle management, medical billing, and municipalities.
Attorney for the Plaintiff are:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
SIX FLAGS: Zhang Investor Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Six Flags Entertainment
Corporation (NYSE: SIX) between April 25, 2018 and January 9, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
To join the class action, click
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=six-flags-entertainment-corporation&id=2176
or contact:
Sophie Zhang, Esq.
Zhang Investor Law
Toll-free at 800-991-3756
Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to (1) the delays of park develop in China
with Riverside were not "short-term" and were material in the
context of long-term opportunity; (2) Riverside was in severe
financial distress and did not have the resources to timely
complete its projects with Six Flags; and (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your
choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. [GN]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Southwest Airlines Co.
(NYSE: LUV). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Southwest Airlines Co. (NYSE: LUV)
Class Period: February 7, 2017 to June 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 20, 2020
The complaint, filed on February 19, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Southwest's operations were non-compliant with government
maintenance and safety regulations; (ii) the foregoing issues were
exacerbated by Southwest's undue influence over FAA officials and,
consequently, lax regulatory oversight of the Company's operations;
(iii) all of the foregoing significantly increased the safety risks
to passengers traveling on Southwest flights and heightened
governmental scrutiny into the Company; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On April 17, 2018, news sources reported that a Southwest plane had
blown an engine, which exploded and caused shrapnel to strike the
plane. The explosion resulted in the death of one passenger, who
was partially pulled through a large hole as the cabin suffered
rapid decompression, and injured seven others. According to the
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the incident
marked "the first passenger fatality in a U.S. airline accident
since 2009," and that, out of twenty-four fan blades in the engine
at issue, one was missing.
On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $0.62 per share, or
1.13%, to close at $54.27 per share on April 17, 2018.
On April 19, 2018, the FAA announced that it would "order
inspections of at least 220 aircraft engines as investigators are
focusing on a broken fan blade in an engine that exploded."
According to news sources, the order was initially proposed in
August 2016, following the earlier incident in which engine failure
had also resulted from a broken fan blade. Critics also reportedly
questioned why the FAA had not acted sooner in conjunction with
their European counterparts.
On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $1.02 per share, or
1.83%, to close at $54.80 per share on April 19, 2018.
On June 21, 2018, news sources reported that eight passengers were
suing Southwest in connection with the engine explosion in April
2018.
On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $1.24 per share, or
2.33%, to close at $51.91 per share on June 22, 2018.
Finally, on June 25, 2019, the Wall Street Journal published an
article entitled "FAA Reassigns Senior Managers in Office
Overseeing Southwest Airlines," which reported that the FAA had
"removed three senior managers in the office overseeing Southwest
Airlines Co., amid allegations of lax safety enforcement raised by
agency whistleblowers and various resulting government inquiries."
The article also noted that "[t]he [DOT]'s inspector-general has
been looking into some of the safety issues for many months . . .
including lapses by the airline in documenting maintenance for more
than 100 of its jets," as well as "failures to reliably compute the
weight of checked baggage and hazardous landing incidents in which
one aircraft smacked a wingtip on the tarmac and another ran off
the strip in stormy weather."
On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $0.30 per share, or
0.59%, to close at $50.70 per share on June 26, 2019.
For more information on the Southwest Airlines class action go to:
https://bespc.com/luv
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country.
Contact:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
Tel: (212) 355-4648
E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
Web site: http://www.bespc.com/
[GN]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Feb. 19, 2020, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against Southwest Airlines Co. (NYSE:
LUV). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is February 7, 2017 through June 25, 2019.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-southwest-airlines-co/.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Southwest
Airlines Co. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, April 20, 2020
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/
[GN]
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.
(SPR) between October 31, 2019 and January 29, 2020 inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Spirit
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Spirit class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1765.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; (2) the Company did not comply with its
established accounting principles related to potential contingent
liabilities; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 10,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1765.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE: SPR) between October 31, 2019 and January 29, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=spirit-aerosystems-holdings-inc&id=2173
call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to (1) the Company lacked effective internal
controls over financial reporting; (2) the Company did not comply
with its established accounting principles related to potential
contingent liabilities; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your
choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.
Contact:
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
Tel: (800) 991-3756
E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
[GN]
STATE AUTO PROPERTY: Smith Sues Over Breach of Duty
---------------------------------------------------
Carla Smith, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00036-BO (E.D.N.C., Feb. 27, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant breached its contractual obligations to the Plaintiff
under her property insurance policy.
Ms. Smith owned a home located at 3762 Eversmith Lane, in
Farmville, North Carolina, located in Pitt County, North Carolina
(the "Insured Premises"). Ms. Smith was insured pursuant to an
insurance contract whereby State Auto agreed to insure, inter alia,
Ms. Smith's property located on the Insured Premises against
property damage, bearing Policy No. HDP0037053 (the "Smith
Policy"). The Smith Policy provided insurance coverage for direct
physical loss to the residence and structures located on the
Insured Premises, except as specifically excluded or limited by the
Smith Policy. This lawsuit only concerns property insurance
coverage for buildings, and not personal contents, such as clothes
and furniture.
Pursuant to the Smith Policy, Ms. Smith paid State Auto premiums in
exchange for insurance coverage. On December 20, 2017, Ms. Smith's
dwelling located on the Insured Premises suffered direct physical
loss caused by covered peril(s) (the "Loss"). State Auto calculated
its actual cash value ("ACV") payment obligation to Ms. Smith by
first estimating the cost to repair or replace the damage with new
materials (replacement cost value, or "RCV"), then subtracted
depreciation. The Smith Policy, and the other property forms at
issue in this pleading, do not permit the withholding or deduction
of labor as depreciation, Ms. Smith asserts.
On January 18, 2018, State Auto calculated the RCV of Ms. Smith's
damaged home at $46,338.54. State Auto then used the same software
to calculate the depreciation for her damaged structures at
$6,022.19. Ms. Smith contends that she was underpaid on her ACV
claim. When it calculated Ms. Smith's ACV benefits owed under the
Smith Policy, State Auto withheld costs for both materials and the
labor required to repair or replace her home as depreciation, even
though labor does not depreciate in value over time, Ms. Smith
contends.
State Auto withheld labor costs throughout its ACV calculations as
depreciation, Ms. Smith alleges. She asserts that State Auto's
withholding of labor costs as depreciation associated with the
repair or replacement of her property resulted in her receiving
payment for her losses in an amount less than she was entitled to
receive under the Smith Policy. She argues that State Auto breached
its obligations under the Smith Policy by improperly withholding
the cost of labor as depreciation.
State Auto materially breached its duty to indemnify Ms. Smith by
withholding labor costs associated with repairing or replacing her
property in its ACV payment as depreciation, thereby paying her
less than she was entitled to receive under the terms of the Smith
Policy, says the complaint.
Ms. Smith is a citizen and resident of Farmville, North Carolina.
State Auto is an insurance company that provides property coverage
for homes, commercial buildings, and other structures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: 919) 600-5005
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
Email: matt@wbmllp.com
SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Mangiaterra Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graciela Leonor Mangiaterra, and other similarly situated
individuals v. SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. d/b/a Chevron
25 d/b/a Sunshine Chevron 25 d/b/a Sunshine #30025 d/b/a Sunshine
25; SHERIDAN #30025, INC. d/b/a Chevron 25 d/b/a Sunshine Chevron
25 d/b/a Sunshine #30025 d/b/a Sunshine 25; RICARDO RAMIREZ; and
MAXIMO ALVAREZ, Case No. 0:20-cv-60451-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28,
2020), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that she worked an average of 55 hours per
week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one-
and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cashier.
The Defendants are Florida companies and Florida residents,
respectively, having their main place of business in Broward
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Metcalf Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Michele Metcalf, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TransPerfect
Global, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-10104 (AJN) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' request to
file the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
On Dec. 12, 2019, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause
why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, given that there is no federal
claim in the case and the Amended Complaint alleged that there was
not complete diversity. On Dec. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff responded
by seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that alleges
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA"). Her proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges that
each of these requirements is met, which would provide the Court
with subject matter jurisdiction.
The Defendants objected to proposed amendment as futile. First,
they contended that the proposed class has less than 100 members.
Second, they claimed that more than two-thirds of the proposed
class are citizens of New York, which they argue triggers the local
controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction.
However, Judge Nathan finds that the Defendants make these factual
claims regarding the size and nature of the proposed class in
letter briefing without any supporting evidence. At this early
stage and on the record, the Court cannot conclude that the
amendment is futile because subject matter jurisdiction would still
be lacking. But the Court does not resolve these questions. The
Defendants may raise these and other arguments contesting subject
matter jurisdiction at a later stage in the case, including at the
motion to dismiss phase.
For these reasons, Judge Nathan is allowing the Plaintiffs leave to
file a second amended complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/PwyZ43 from Leagle.com.
Michele Metcalf, for herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson --
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
& Garber, LLP, Nona Yegazarian -- nona@bnkslaw.com -- Brown Neri
Smith and Khan LLP, Andrew Charles White, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac vice & Nathan M.
Smith -- nate@bnsklaw.com -- Brown Neri Smith and Khan LLP.
Hannah Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson,
Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP.
TransPerfect Global, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel
Turinsky -- daniel.turinsky@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP,
Garrett David Kennedy -- garrett.kennedy@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
US LLP & Janeen Renee Hall -- janeen.hall@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP.
Transperfect Translations International, Inc., TransPerfect
Document Management, Inc., TransPerfect, Inc. & TransPerfect Remote
Interpreting, Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel Turinsky, DLA
Piper US LLP.
TRAVELMASTERS INC: Naiman Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Sid Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Travelmasters, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00907 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Travelmasters, Inc. is travel company. Naiman claims to have
received auto-dialed telemarketing calls from Travelmasters on his
phone despite being registered in the National Do-Not-Call
registry. [BN]
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
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
TREASURY WINE: Faces Class Suit Over Stock Market Disclosure Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoebe French, writing for the drinks business, reports that having
revealed profits fell by almost 1% to AU$211.4 million in the six
months to December 2019, Treasury Wine Estates is also facing a
potential class action suit for breaches of stock market disclosure
laws.
TWE first intimated that its profits would take a hit in January.
Blaming "challenging conditions" in the US market, which
accelerated in the second quarter of the year, the Penfolds
producer reported a 17% fall in EBITS in the Americas to $98.3
million.
Profit margins were also down in the region, falling by 3.6
percentage points to 16.1%.
In its 2020 interim results, the company's total net profit after
tax fell by 0.9% to AU$211.4m in the six months to 31 December
2019, compared to $213.4m in the same period the year before.
However, net sales rose by 1.9% to $1.5 billion.
As reported by The Australian Financial Review, TWE is facing a
second class action from law firm Maurice Blackburn after the
surprise profit warning in January. Maurice Blackburn won a
previous case against the company which ended in a $49m
settlement.
The firm is investigating whether TWE should have published the
correct profit expectations earlier than 28 January 2020.
The AFW also reported that American financial services company
Capital Group, which was formerly the largest shareholder in TWE,
has decreased its stake in the company. Last August it owned 9.65%
stake in the company, however, it revealed this week that it now
owns less than 5%.
Commenting on the interim results, CEO of TWE, Michael Clarke,
said: "While we are very pleased with our performance across the
Asia, ANZ and EMEA regions, our first half performance in the
Americas has been a setback and is disappointing given the high
expectations we have for growth in this important market."
Having announced his departure last year, it has now been revealed
that Clarke will retire on 1 July to be succeeded by Tim Ford.
A statement from TWE also noted that it was "too early" to assess
the impact of the coronavirus, but "should there be a sustained
material impact on consumption, this would impact [TWE's] F20
earnings". [GN]
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Diller Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRANDON DILLER, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. and the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE, Hon. Young B. Kim, Case No. 1:20-cv-01079 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class
consisting of:
"every person: (1) to whom, from December 2015 to the filing of
this action, defendant Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. (the
"Trump Committee") or the Republican National Committee sent a
non-emergency telephone SMS message to the person's cellular
telephone through the use of an automatic dialing system; (2) and
did not provide express consent to the Trump Committee or the RNC
to send an SMS message regarding Donald J. Trump."
The Plaintiff files this motion soon after the filing of his Class
Action Complaint in order to avoid any attempt by the Defendants to
moot Plaintiff's individual claims in this class action.
However, in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the
court to determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to
represent. As a result, Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class
discovery as soon as practicable.
The case involves Defendants' text messaging campaign and common
legal questions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. is a campaign committee for
Donald Trump. The Republican National Committee is a U.S. political
committee that leads the Republican Party of the United States.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Piper, Esq.
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
Jonathan Piper, Esq.
Molly E. Stemper, Esq.
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kaytlin L. Roholt, Esq.
Brett Shumate, Esq.
JONES DAY
77 West Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312 782-3939
E-mail: kroholot@jonesday.com
bshumate@jonesday.com
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Lapin Sues in Florida Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lapin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION, PATRICIA A. STITZEL,
CHRISTOPHER D. O'LEARY, CASSANDRA HARRIS, and MICHAEL POTESHMAN,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00357-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2020), is
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Tupperware securities between January 30, 2019,
and February 24, 2020, inclusive, seeking claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On February 24, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing
that the Company will file a Form 12b-25 Notification of Late
Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide a
15-calendar day extension within which to file its From 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. The February 24, 2020
press release also announced for the first time that the Company is
conducting "an investigation primarily into the accounting for
accounts payable and accrued liabilities at its Fuller Mexico
beauty business" and that "the Company is forecasting a need for
relief concerning its existing leverage ratio covenant in its $650
million Credit Agreement dated March, 29, 2019."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.61 per share, or
over 45%, to close at $3.11 per share on February 25, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) Tupperware lacked effective internal controls; (2)
there were accounting irregularities relating to the Company's
Fuller Mexico business; (3) as a result of the above, Tupperware
would need to investigate those accounting irregularities and be
unable to timely file its 2019 annual report; (4) Tupperware would
need relief from its $650 million Credit Agreement; (5) Tupperware
provided overvalued earnings per share guidance; and (6) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Tupperware securities during the Class
Period.
Tupperware is a direct-to-consumer marketer of products sold around
the world. The Company's brands include Tupperware, Avroy Shlain,
Fuller, NaturCare, Nutrimetics, and Nuvo.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and –
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
U.S. SOCCER: Women's Team Seeks $67MM to End Equal Pay Fight
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Das, writing for The New York Times, reports that in court
filings ahead of a looming gender discrimination trial, the players
and U.S. Soccer proposed resolutions to a long-running equal pay
fight.
The United States Soccer Federation and the members of its World
Cup champion women's national team each proposed a way out of their
bitter equal pay lawsuit in court filings late Thursday night.
The federation sought to avoid a looming gender discrimination
trial by asking the judge to dismiss the players' claim. The
women's players also asked for a pretrial decision, but on far
different terms: They are seeking almost $67 million -- and
potentially millions more -- in back pay and damages.
The diametrically opposed motions, filed Feb. 20 in federal court
in California before a midnight deadline, showed just how far apart
the players and U.S. Soccer remain not only in what they consider a
fair outcome but also in their basic concepts of what constitutes
equal pay despite years of litigation, depositions, public
relations campaigns and -- amid it all -- two straight World Cup
championships.
The judge, R. Gary Klausner of United States District Court for the
Central District of California, can choose either solution, called
a motion for summary judgment, and render moot a trial that he has
set to begin in May. But while Klausner appeared to support some of
the women's claims about unequal pay and working conditions when he
granted the players class-action status in November, both the
players and U.S. Soccer expect him to allow the case to proceed to
trial rather than pick a winner now on one side's terms.
The kind of multimillion-dollar award sought by the players -- a
pool of dozens of athletes, including stars like Alex Morgan and
Carli Lloyd but also players who have made only a handful of
appearances for the national team -- would be a significant blow to
U.S. Soccer's finances, potentially affecting spending not only the
men's and women's national teams but also youth development,
coaching and referee education and dozens of grass-roots soccer
programs. [GN]
ULTRA SHINE: Workers Sue Over Denied OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Perez and Pedro Santiago Zacariaz, on behalf of
themselves, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v.
Ultra Shine Car Wash, Inc., Adelino R. Pastilha and Juan Mendez,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00782, (S.D. N.Y., January 8, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid
"spread of hours" pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendants operate as "Ultra Shine Car Wash," located at 26 Romaine
Avenue, Yonkers, New York, where Perez and Zacariaz worked as
attendants. They generally work over 40 hours per week without the
appropriate overtime premium, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. (212) 209-3933
Fax. (212) 209-7102
Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
UNILEVER US: Pardini Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KYM PARDINI AND CARRIE WOOD,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. UNILEVER
UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:13-cv-01675-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will ask the Court on
April 24, 2020, for an order:
1. certify these classes:
Class
"all natural persons who purchased I Can't Believe It's Not
Butter! Spray ("ICBINB") in the United States, at any time
from December 2009 to May 2010 (the Class Period).
Subclass 1:
"all class members who purchased ICBINB in the State of
California during the Class Period. This California subclass
will pursue claims arising under the following consumer
protection statutes: The Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and
the California Unfair Competition Law.
Subclass 2:
"all class members who purchased ICBINB in the State of
Missouri during the Class Period." The Missouri subclass
will pursue claims arising under the following consumer
protection statute: The Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act";
2. appointing the representatives of Class and Subclasses as
follows: Plaintiff Kym Pardini, Class and Subclass 1
(California); and Carrie Wood, Class and Subclass 2
(Missouri); and
3. appointing Eureka Law Firm and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP as lead class counsel
Unilever manufactures personal care products. The Company offers ,
laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.
as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads, sauces,
tea.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:
Justin T. Berger, Esq.
Sarvenaz J. Fahimi, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com
sfahimi@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Ureka E. Idstrom, Esq.
THE EUREKA LAW FIRM
5606 Belinder Road
Fairway, KS 66205
Telephone: (816) 665-3515
E-mail: uidstrom@eurekalaw.com
UNITED KINGDOM: Fathers 4 Justice Mulls Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
702 reports that civil rights movement Fathers 4 Justice has
reached out to various government departments and given them 90
days notice to respond to their grievances before they decide to
take legal action.
One member of the group, which represents fathers who have been
alienated from their children, has gone on a hunger strike and
camped out at the Department of Social Development on Feb. 10,
demanding access to his children.
Chairperson of Fathers 4 Justice Gary Da Silva says while there is
nothing wrong with the current legislation, there are too many
lawyers and psychologists interpreting the law for their own
financial gain.
"By the time that parents come to us, by the time they get to us,
these people are financially, emotionally and psychologically
destroyed and the only way we can help them is by trying to find a
lawyer that won't charge as much as what everybody else has done,"
says Mr. Da Silva.
"Parents don't get access to their children's school reports, they
are not allowed to participate in things like parents' day and so
on and so forth.
"We are demanding a de facto automatic 50/50 regarding guardianship
and maintenance. If the state is not going to listen to our cries
then unfortunately we will have to launch a class action suit
against the state. We are saying that we have to reduce the ability
of lawyers, advocates, psychologists, social welfare workers
ability to play God.
"The one parent just doesn't want the other parent involved in the
children's life, it is out of spite, that is the motivation.
Granted there are some cases that are horrendous." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Afhan & Iraqi Allies Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES UNDER SERIOUS THREAT BECAUSE
OF THEIR FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES, ON THEIR OWN AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL R.
POMPEO, et. al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-01388 (TSC) (D.
D.C.), Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs -- five anonymous Afghan or Iraqi nationals --
represent a class of individuals who, despite significant personal
risk, aided the United States in its time of need and now look to
the United States for refuge for themselves and their immediate
family members. They allege that they provided faithful and
valuable service to the US government or its allied forces in their
capacities as employees of or on behalf of the United States
government over the past several years, and that because of their
service, they face an ongoing serious threat to their lives in
their home countries.
In response to these threats, the Plaintiffs submitted Special
Immigrant Visa ("SIV") applications to the U.S. Department of
State, seeking lawful admission into the United States. Two
Plaintiffs submitted their applications in 2013, one in 2015, and
the other two in 2016. At the time they filed this action on June
12, 2018, none of their SIV applications had received a final
decision. They claim that the Defendants have failed to process
and adjudicate their SIV applications within a reasonable time.
There are five class representatives: John Doe-Alpha, Jane
Doe-Bravo, John Doe-Charlie, Jane Doe-Delta, and John Doe-Echo.
All are SIV applicants who resided in Iraq or Afghanistan and
allege that they lived "in fear of reprisal for their service to
the US government" while they awaited "final decisions from the
Defendants on their applications." For each of them, the
Defendants took far longer than the statutorily-allowed 9 months to
complete all government-controlled processing steps. Their
application processes are now complete, as the Defendants
adjudicated each of their cases after the Plaintiffs' filed their
Complaint.
The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification. After three
rounds of briefing, the Defendants have shown that implementing the
Court's remedy -- a plan for prompt adjudication -- does present
certain administrative challenges. However, the Court finds that
despite these challenges, the requirements for class certification
are satisfied. Moreover, the administrative challenges pale in
comparison to the inefficiency, cost, and waste of resources that
would result if each applicant (there are hundreds), were to bring
individual claims. The burden of such inefficient and needlessly
duplicative litigation would be borne by the Court, the Defendants,
and the Plaintiffs, whose lives, and whose families' lives, are at
risk every day their applications are pending.
Judge Chutkan concludes that while the SIV process is complex and
resource-intensive, the Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to
fully adjudicate applications without unreasonable delay. The
Plaintiffs filed the suit as a class to efficiently and effectively
bring the Defendants into compliance with that statutory duty.
Because the Plaintiffs' proposed class meets the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the motion to certify the class
is granted.
The relevant class is defined as all people who have (1) applied
for an Afghan or Iraqi SIV pursuant to the Afghan Allies Protection
Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, 123 Stat. 807, or the Refugee
Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 395, by
submitting an application for Chief of Mission ("COM") approval,
and (2) whose applications have been awaiting government action for
longer than 9 months.
An appropriate Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 5, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lDJsd4 from Leagle.com.
AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES, UNDER SERIOUS THREAT BECAUSE OF THEIR
FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES, ON THEIR OWN AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by Allison
Wilson , FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP, David Yury Livshiz
-- david.livshiz@freshfields.com -- FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER
US LLP, Deepa Alagesan -- dalagesan@refugeerights.org --
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, Linda H. Martin --
linda.martin@freshfields.com -- FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US
LLP, Mariko Hirose -- mhirose@refugeerights.org -- INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, Rebecca Curwin --
rebecca.curwin@freshfields.com -- FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US
LLP, Shannon M. Leitner -- Shannon.LEITNER@freshfields.com --
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP & Olivia P. Greene,
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP, pro hac vice.
MICHAEL RICHARD POMPEO, CARL C. RISCH, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, DONALD NEUFELD & UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants, represented by Joseph F. Carilli,
Jr., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division & William M. Martin,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Divison.
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Defendant, represented by Joseph F. Carilli, Jr.,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division.
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Defendant, represented by William M. Martin, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Divison.
RYAN C. CROCKER, Amicus, represented by Evan A. Young --
evan.young@bakerbotts.com -- BAKER BOTTS LLP.
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App
--------------------------------------------------------------
Windy Lucius, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES INC. d/b/a THE VITAMIN SHOPPE, Case
No. 1:20-cv-20900-AHS (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2020), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act for
offering and maintaining a mobile application that is not fully
accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers.
The Defendant's App (software that is intended to run on mobile
devises such as phones or tablet computers) does not properly
interact with Apple's assistive technology in a manner that will
allow the blind and visually impaired to enjoy the App, nor does it
provide other means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired,
the Plaintiff alleges.
The Defendant offers its App to the general public from which it
sells vitamins, supplements and other goods; and provides fitness,
health and nutrition information, videos and blogs.
The Plaintiff has downloaded and attempted to patronize the App in
the past and intends to continue to make further attempts to
patronize the Defendant's App. However, unless the Defendant is
required to eliminate the access barriers at issue and required to
change its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on the
App, the Plaintiff says she will continue to be denied full and
equal access to the App and will be deterred from fully using the
App or shopping at the physical locations. The Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as
the result of the discriminatory conditions present at Defendant's
App, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is blind and has been blind for the past nine
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 305-351-2014
Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com
VOLVO CARS: Laurenses Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as XAVIER LAURENS and KHADIJA
LAURENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-08798-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on March 16, 2020 for an order
granting class certification in favor of Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, Volvo misleadingly claimed that its
2016 Volvo XC90 T8, a twin engine plug-in hybrid sport utility
vehicle purchased by the Plaintiff, was capable of being driven
"around 40 kilometres" on a full electric charge, which translates
to range of approximately 25 miles solely on electricity -- an
important consideration in the Plaintiffs' purchasing decision.
However, after the Plaintiffs took possession of the T8 and began
to drive it, they discovered that they were only able drive the car
for 8 to 10 miles on a full electric charge. The Plaintiffs
contend that they would not have paid a $20,000 premium -- the
difference between the cost of the T8 and the cost of the fully gas
powered model -- had they known of the short electric driving
distance. The Plaintiffs allege that VCUSA refuses to refund the
price difference to them.
Volvo Cars markets, and sells automobiles. The company offers
wholesale distribution of new and used passenger automobiles,
trucks, trailers, and components.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Ross Schmierer, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN
PRINCE, P.C.
525 Route 73 N., Ste. 410
Marlton, NJ
Telephone: (856)797-9951
E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com
- and -
Joseph Siprut, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
17 North State Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
- and -
Fausto Sanchez, Esq.
David Levine, Esq.
SANCHEZ FISCHER LEVINE, LLP
1200 Brickell Ave, Ste. 507
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 925-9947
E-mail: fsanchez@sfl-law.com
dlevine@sfl-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert A. Roth, Esq.
Karlin E. Sangdahl, Esq.
Oliver Beiersdorf, Esq.
REED SMITH, LLP
10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60606
WAWA: Credit Card Firms File Class Actions Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that as customers
continue to file lawsuits against the convenience store chain Wawa
over a data breach it experienced last year, credit card companies
have begun filing class action lawsuits of their own over the hack
that exposed payment card information from users at potentially all
of the company's locations.
Since January, attorneys from the Pittsburgh data privacy boutique
Carlson Lynch have filed three class action lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging
that the Delaware County, Pennsylvania-based company negligently
failed to protect its payment card data. In their complaints, the
plaintiff-companies, Inspire Federal Credit Union, First Choice
Federal Credit Union and Greater Cincinnati Credit Union, argued
that they hold the ultimate burden of resolving the problems that
Wawa consumers may now face.
"As a result of the Wawa data breach, plaintiff and class members
are required, and will continue to be required, to cancel and
reissue payment cards, change or close accounts, notify
members/customers that their cards were compromised, investigate
claims of fraudulent activity, refund fraudulent charges, increase
fraud monitoring on potentially impacted accounts, and take other
steps to protect themselves and their members/customers,"
Cincinnati Credit Union said in its complaint, which was filed Feb.
7. "Plaintiffs and members of the class also lost or will lose
interest and transaction fees due to reduced card usage.
Furthermore, debit and credit cards belonging to plaintiff and
class members -- as well as the account numbers on the face of the
cards-- were devalued."
Carlson Lynch attorney Gary Lynch filed the lawsuits. Lynch is on
the steering committee in the class actions brought against
Marriott Inc.‘s data breach and played a lead role in convincing
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that companies have a common-law
duty to protect their electronically stored employee data in
Dittman v. UPMC.
Lynch said he has represented dozens of other financial
institutions who have sued over prior data breaches, and has been
in talks with those companies about the Wawa breach.
"If there are financial institutions that want to be class
representatives, we will add them as appropriate," he said. "We are
in discussions with other financial institutions who may be
interested in joining the lawsuit."
Although only Lynch filed the Greater Cincinnati Credit Union's
suit, on the Inspire Federal Credit Union suit, Lynch was joined by
attorneys from Lowey Dannenberg in White Plains, New York; The
Coffman Law Firm in Beaumont, Texas; Levin Sedran & Berman and
Golomb & Honik in Philadelphia; and the firms Lockridge Grindal
Nauen and Chestnut Cambronne in Minneapolis.
The new group of lawsuits filed by financial entities add to the
growing consumer-focused litigation that is also pending in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court.
The first lawsuits over the data breach began to be filed Dec.
20—the day after Wawa's CEO said in an open letter there had been
a breach of the company card payment data. According to the letter,
malware that had been active since March was discovered Dec. 10,
and the company contained it by Dec. 12. The letter said the
malware potentially exposed payment card information from customers
at all Wawa locations, including credit and debit card numbers,
expiration dates and names.
The suits brought by the financial institutions said Wawa refused
to implement best practices, or upgrade critical security, and
argued that, with the rise of high-profile data breaches at other
chains like Wendy's and The Home Depot, it should have been aware
of the need for increased data security. The companies also
contended that Wawa failed to comply with the Federal Trade
Commission's requirements, or the minimum security standards
outlined by the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council.
According to Lynch, historically, in data breach cases, the suits
brought by financial institutions are put on a separate track from
those that are brought by consumers.
Lynch, who has handled data breach cases since the hack of retail
giant Target in 2013, also said the Wawa case is unique in that the
customers are geographically concentrated, and the hack involved
swipe point of sale machines, rather than machines that used chip
technology, which, he said, could affect the damages.
No attorneys have entered their appearances yet on behalf of Wawa
in the suits brought by either Inspire Federal Credit Union or
Greater Cincinnati Credit Union, but, in the consumer class
actions, Ezra Church at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius is representing the
company. Church did not return a call seeking comment.
Wawa is incorporated in New Jersey. [GN]
WESTPAC BANKING: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Westpac
Banking Corporation (WBK).
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
WBK Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/westpac-banking-corporation-loss-form?prid=5501&wire=1
WBK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 11, 2015
- November 19, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 30, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/westpac-banking-corporation-loss-form?prid=5501&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Westpac
Banking Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) contrary to
Australian law, the Company failed to report over 19.5 million
international funds transfer instructions to the Australian
Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre ("AUSTRAC"); (2) the
Company did not appropriately monitor and assess the ongoing money
laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with movement
of money into and out of Australia; (3) the Westpac did not pass on
requisite information about the source of funds to other banks in
the transfer chain; (4) despite being aware of the heightened
risks, the Company did not carry out appropriate due diligence on
transactions in South East Asia and the Philippines that had known
financial indicators relating to child exploitation risks; (5) the
Company's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing
Policy Program was inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage
money laundering and terrorism financing risks; and (6) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
[GN]
WINDSTONE HEALTH: Faces Essayli Suit Over Unlawful Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
SOHA ESSAYLI, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. WINDSTONE HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 3G-2020-G1132S74-CU-OE-CXC (Calif.
Super., Orange Cty., February 20, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide
meal and rest periods premiums, keep requisite payroll records,
reimburse employees for business expenses, and receive complete and
accurate wage statements.
The case alleges that Defendants directly or indirectly controlled
or affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, and
conditions of employment of Plaintiff and the other class members,
making each of the Defendants employers liable under the statutory
provisions. Plaintiff is an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee.
Windstone Health Services, Inc. is a behavioral health professional
medical corporation that provides managed mental health and
substance abuse treatment services through contracts with managed
care organizations, HMOs, behavioral health carve out companies,
medical groups and public sector agencies. Windstone Behavioral
Health is one of the largest privately owned behavioral health care
provider groups and provides service throughout Central and
Southern California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
WIRELESS VISION: Staff Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Corey, Sarah Jaenke and Joshua Reiszner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wireless
Vision, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2020CH01192 (Ill. Cir., January
29, 2020), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and
use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
Defendant operates retail store locations across the state of
Illinois, including a store at Fairview Heights, Illinois where
Plaintiffs worked. They say that they were required to "clock-in"
and "clock-out" using a biometric data reader that scanned
fingerprints. They were never informed of the specific purposes or
length of time for which their biometric data was collected, stored
and used. Plaintiffs also did not issue a written release
authorizing the collection, capture, other obtainment, or
subsequent disclosure of their biometric identifiers, says the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
Alex J. Dravillas. Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (312) 741-5220
Email: amz@kellerlenkner.com
ajd@kellerlenkner.com
WOORI WELLS: Pae Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yoon Pae, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WOORI WELLS CORP. d/b/a Maru Sushi, Kanpai 2, and
Kanpai Izakaya, WOORI, CORP. d/b/a Maru Sushi, Kanpai 2, and Kanpai
Izakaya, Kanpai Japanese Restaurant, d/b/a Maru Sushi, Kanpai 2,
and Kanpai Izakaya, Kanpai 2, d/b/a Maru Sushi, Kanpai 2, and
Kanpai Izakaya, Maru Sushi, d/b/a Maru Sushi, Kanpai 2, and Kanpai
Izakaya, Jong Soo Kim, and Hye Jung Kim, Case No. 2:20-cv-00325-NJ
(E.D. Wis., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the and Wisconsin wage and hour laws to
recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon
wages, civil penalties, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief.
The Defendants have had a common policy and practice of failing to
pay its Sushi Chefs overtime premium compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek, the Plaintiff alleges.
As a result of these common policies and practices, the Defendants
have failed to compensate the Plaintiff for overtime wages dues, in
violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin wage and hour laws, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as Sushi Chef's at Maru Sushi, Kanpai Izakaya,
and Kanpai 2.
Woori Wells has and continues to operate a sushi restaurant by the
name of Kanpai Izakaya, Kanpai 2 and/or Maru Sushi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry a Johnson, Esq.
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
PO Box 442
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
Phone: 414-271-8650
Facsimile: 414-271-8442
Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com
smurshid@hq-law.com
tmaynard@hq-law.com
[*] Class Actions Target NYC Landlords Over J-51 Tax Incentive
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rusty Brooks, writing for The Jewish Voice, reports that more than
70 class action lawsuits against landlords in New York City are
making their way through courts.
According to the N.Y Post: "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 Real Deal previously reported on a major class action lawsuit
in Harlem last fall.
The Real Deal reported : "In a 4-3 decision, the state's Court of
Appeals ruled that a trial court shouldn't have dismissed a 2016
lawsuit filed against Big City Realty, which accused the landlord
of misrepresenting the costs of individual apartment improvements,
inflating preferential rents and falsely certifying that apartments
were rent stabilized under the J-51 tax break program.".
The J-51 Tax break is defined by New York City as: "The J-51 Tax
Incentive program is an as-of-right tax exemption and abatement for
residential rehabilitation or conversion to multi-family housing.
Eligible projects for this program include New York City Department
of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)- or privately
financed moderate and gut rehabilitation, privately financed and
governmentally-assisted major capital improvements to multiple
dwellings, and conversions of lofts and other non-residential
buildings into multiple dwellings.
The tax benefit is a 34-year (30 years full tax benefit and then an
additional four-year phasing out of the program) or 14-year (10
years tax benefit and then an additional four-year phasing out of
the program) exemption from the increase in real estate taxes
resulting from the work. Affordable housing projects generally get
the 34-year exemption, while other projects receive the 14-year
exemption. In addition, existing real estate taxes receive an
abatement of up to 8.3 percent or 12.5 percent of the cost of the
work each year for up to 20 years. Privately financed projects in
Manhattan south of 110th Street and co-ops and condominiums
generally receive some limited benefits.'
These class action lawsuits hinge on this provision of the tax
break: "All rental units become subject to rent stabilization for
the duration of the benefits. In rental buildings, the landlord
must also reduce the Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increase
allowed under rent stabilization as a result of the work, by a
portion of the value of the tax abatement."
"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, The Post
quoted.
Carr said his group has helped launch 55 J-51-related lawsuits
since 2016, most of them benefiting low income and working-class
families.
According to the Post tenants in these lawsuits can see up a $200
Million windfall in back rent.
Landlords are not thrilled. The Post reported Mitchell Posilkin,
chief counsel at the Rent Stabilization Association which
represents thousands of property owners in New York, stating: "
"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". [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $50MM Aearo-Related Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals
of US$50 million as of December 31, 2019, for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
acquired the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.
"As of December 31, 2019, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American
Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot
Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, coal mine dust, or other occupational
dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or
generally in the workplace.
"As of December 31, 2019, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, had accruals of US$50 million for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims. This accrual represents the
Company's best estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an
estimation period for future claims that may be filed against Aearo
approaching the year 2050. The accrual was increased by US$22
million from the year-end 2018, reflecting the Company's assessment
of pending and expected lawsuits, its review of its respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities, and the cost of resolving claims of
persons who claim more serious injuries. Responsibility for legal
costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently
shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American
Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their
respective insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated
among the parties based on the number of years each company sold
respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the
AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged
years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of
the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered
into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement
provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of
US$100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and
indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving
exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators
sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in
determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream
of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the
agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to
January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's
potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen
from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has
elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be
exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995
period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to
discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is
no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/jyq81s
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,727 Claimants at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is still a defendant in numerous lawsuits in various
courts that purport to represent approximately 1,727 individual
claimants as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.
"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a
jury (including the lawsuits in 2018). In 2018, 3M received a jury
verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state
court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in
December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were
defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos
fibers.
"In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710
respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust
and awarded compensatory damages of approximately US$2 million and
punitive damages totaling US$63 million.
"In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust
lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million,
including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case.
That settlement has now been completed, and the appeal has been
dismissed.
"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/jyq81s
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,480 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. had 6,480 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at December 31, 2019, involving predecessor company Bendix
Friction Materials business, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Of the 6,480 unresolved claims, 3,081 of which are for nonmalignant
claims while the remaining 3,399 are for mesothelioma and other
cancer claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/aRaWyL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Paid $38MM to Resolve Claims in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it paid US$38 million during the years
ended December 31, 2019, in asbestos-related claim resolution costs
and associated defense costs. The Company also disclosed that at
December 31, 2019, there are no pending claims against the Company.
The Company also disclosed 0 ending asbestos liability as of
December 31.
The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
that the Company is obligated to indemnify, has been named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
Morse TEC, a former wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, was the
obligor for the Company's recorded asbestos-related liabilities and
the policyholder of the related insurance assets.
"On October 30, 2019, the Company transferred 100% of its equity
interests to Enstar. As a result of the transaction, the Company
removed Morse TEC's asbestos-related liabilities, related insurance
assets and associated deferred tax assets from the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.
"During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company
paid US$38 million and US$46 million, respectively, in
asbestos-related claim resolution costs and associated defense
costs. Asbestos-related claim resolution costs and associated
defense costs are reflected in the Company's operating cash flows.
"Prior to the derecognition of Morse TEC, the Company reviewed its
own experience in handling asbestos-related claims and trends
affecting asbestos-related claims in the U.S. tort system generally
for the purposes of assessing the value of pending asbestos-related
claims and the number and value of those that may be asserted in
the future, as well as potential recoveries from the Company's
insurance carriers with respect to such claims and defense costs.
"As part of its review and assessment of asbestos-related claims,
the Company utilized a third-party actuary to further assist in the
analysis of potential future asbestos-related claim resolution
costs and associated defense costs. The actuary's work utilized
data and analysis resulting from the Company's claim review
process, including input from national coordinating counsel and
local counsel, and included the development of an estimate of the
potential value of asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet
resolved as well as the number and potential value of
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted. In developing the
estimate of liability for potential future claims, the actuary
projected a potential number of future claims based on the
Company's historical claim filings and patterns and compared that
to anticipated levels of unique plaintiff asbestos-related claims
asserted in the U.S. tort system against all defendants. The
actuary also utilized assumptions based on the Company's historical
proportion of claims resolved without payment, historical claim
resolution costs for those claims that result in a payment, and
historical defense costs. The liabilities were estimated by
multiplying the pending and projected future claim filings by
projected payments rates and average claim resolution amounts and
then adding an estimate for defense costs.
"The Company determined based on the factors described above,
including the analysis and input of the actuary, its best estimate
of the aggregate liability both for asbestos-related claims
asserted but not yet resolved and potential asbestos-related claims
not yet asserted, including estimated defense costs. This
liability reflected the actuarial central estimate, which was
intended to represent an expected value of the most probable
outcome.
"The Company's estimate of asbestos-related claim resolution costs
and associated defense costs was not discounted to present value
and included an estimate of liability for potential future claims
not yet asserted through December 31, 2064 with a runoff through
2074. The Company believed that December 31, 2074 was a reasonable
assumption as to the last date on which it was likely to have
resolved all asbestos-related claims, based on the nature and
useful life of the Company's products and the likelihood of
incidence of asbestos-related disease in the U.S. population
generally."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/b15WHT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Has $34MM Reserves for Respirator Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2019, that it has a reserve of US$34 million at
December 31, 2019, for its expected share of liability for existing
and future respirator liability claims.
The Company states, "Cabot has exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase
transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO
brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection
with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in
certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities,
including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in
settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products
used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. In
exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982.
"The respirator liabilities generally involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.
"Cabot has a reserve to cover its expected share of liability for
existing and future respirator liability claims, which at December
31, 2019 and September 30, 2019, was US$34 million and US$35
million, respectively. The Company made payments related to its
respirator liability of US$1 million in the first three months of
both fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2019.
"The Company's current estimate of the cost of its share of
existing and future respirator liability claims is based on facts
and circumstances existing at this time. Developments that could
affect the Company's estimate include, but are not limited to, (i)
significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) changes in
the rate of dismissals without payment of pending claims, (iii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims,
including potential settlements of groups of claims, (iv)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(v) changes in the nature of claims received, (vi) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vii) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, (viii) the financial viability of the
parties that contribute to the settlement of respirator claims,
(ix) a change in the availability of insurance coverage maintained
by certain of the parties that contribute to the settlement of
respirator claims, or the indemnity provided by a former owner of
the business, (x) changes in the allocation of costs among the
various parties paying legal and settlement costs, and (xi) a
determination that the assumptions that were used to estimate
Cabot's share of liability are no longer reasonable. The Company
cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its
current estimate of its share of liability for existing and future
claims. Accordingly, the actual amount of these liabilities for
existing and future claims could be larger than the reserved
amount."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bDBWpU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated said in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that at this time, the amount of
reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the
Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating
cash flows.
The Company states, "Over the years, the Company has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured
in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s. In
addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek
punitive damages. Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals
or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material
effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows. The Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to
the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or
judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. At this
time, the amount of reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is
not material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows, although these matters could
result in the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or
expenses, and charges against earnings in particular periods."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/evysnS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $150MM Unfavorable Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation recognized a net unfavorable prior year
development of US$150 million before consideration of cessions to
the Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) for the year ended December 31,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "In 2010, Continental Casualty Company (CCC)
together with several of the Company's insurance subsidiaries
completed a transaction with National Indemnity Company (NICO), a
subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., under which substantially
all of the Company's legacy A&EP liabilities were ceded to NICO
through a LPT. At the effective date of the transaction, the
Company ceded approximately US$1.6 billion of net A&EP claim and
allocated claim adjustment expense reserves to NICO under a
retroactive reinsurance agreement with an aggregate limit of US$4
billion. The US$1.6 billion of claim and allocated claim
adjustment expense reserves ceded to NICO was net of US$1.2 billion
of ceded claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserves
under existing third-party reinsurance contracts. The NICO LPT
aggregate reinsurance limit also covers credit risk on the existing
third-party reinsurance related to these liabilities. The Company
paid NICO a reinsurance premium of US$2 billion and transferred to
NICO billed third-party reinsurance receivables related to A&EP
claims with a net book value of US$215 million, resulting in total
consideration of US$2.2 billion.
"In years subsequent to the effective date of the LPT, the Company
recognized adverse prior year development on its A&EP reserves
resulting in additional amounts ceded under the LPT. As a result,
the cumulative amounts ceded under the LPT have exceeded the US$2.2
billion consideration paid, resulting in the NICO LPT moving into a
gain position, requiring retroactive reinsurance accounting. Under
retroactive reinsurance accounting, this gain is deferred and only
recognized in earnings in proportion to actual paid recoveries
under the LPT. Over the life of the contract, there is no economic
impact as long as any additional losses incurred are within the
limit of the LPT. In a period in which the Company recognizes a
change in the estimate of A&EP reserves that increases or decreases
the amounts ceded under the LPT, the proportion of actual paid
recoveries to total ceded losses is affected and the change in the
deferred gain is recognized in earnings as if the revised estimate
of ceded losses was available at the effective date of the LPT.
The effect of the deferred retroactive reinsurance benefit is
recorded in Insurance claims and policyholders' benefits in the
Consolidated Statements of Operations.
"Net unfavorable prior year development of US$150 million, US$178
million and US$60 million was recognized before consideration of
cessions to the LPT for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and
2017. The 2019 unfavorable development of US$150 million was
primarily driven by higher than anticipated defense and indemnity
costs on known direct asbestos and environmental accounts and a
reduction in estimated reinsurance recoverable. The 2018
unfavorable development of US$178 million was driven by higher than
anticipated defense and indemnity costs on known direct asbestos
and environmental accounts and by paid losses on assumed
reinsurance exposures. Additionally, in 2019 and 2018, the Company
released US$25 million and US$16 million of its provision for
uncollectible third-party reinsurance. The 2017 unfavorable
development of US$60 million was driven by modestly higher
anticipated payouts on claims from known sources of asbestos
exposure.
"As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the cumulative amounts ceded
under the LPT were US$3.2 billion and US$3.1 billion. The
unrecognized deferred retroactive reinsurance benefit was US$392
million and US$374 million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 and is
included within Other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.
"NICO established a collateral trust account as security for its
obligations to the Company. The fair value of the collateral trust
account was US$3.7 billion and US$2.7 billion as of December 31,
2019 and 2018. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. guaranteed the
payment obligations of NICO up to the aggregate reinsurance limit
as well as certain of NICO's performance obligations under the
trust agreement. NICO is responsible for claims handling and
billing and collection from third-party reinsurers related to the
majority of the Company's A&EP claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ePXGBH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $310MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Electric Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2019, that it has liabilities of US$310 million
for asbestos litigation, included in Other Liabilities, at December
31, 2019, compared to US$313 million at September 30, 2019.
The Company also recorded US$114 million for asbestos-related
insurance receivables, which was included in Other Assets, at
December 31, 2019, compared to US$115 million at September 30,
2019.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Vh1iBs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $83MM Claims Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
recorded US$83 million at December 31, 2019, for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Generation maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain
facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The estimated liabilities are
recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal
costs associated with handling these matters, which could be
material.
"At December 31, 2019 and 2018, Exelon and Generation had recorded
estimated liabilities of approximately US$83 million and US$79
million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims. As of December 31, 2019, approximately US$26 million of
this amount related to 263 open claims presented to Generation,
while the remaining US$57 million is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/KRDNVp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. still defends itself in pending asbestos
litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in pending
asbestos litigations involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, in several states. The majority of these claims arise
out of alleged past exposures by contractors (and in Pennsylvania,
former employees) at both currently and formerly owned electric
generation plants. In addition, asbestos and other regulated
substances are, and may continue to be, present at currently owned
facilities where suitable alternative materials are not available.
We believe that any remaining asbestos at our facilities is
contained and properly identified in accordance with applicable
governmental regulations, including OSHA. The continued presence
of asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities,
however, could result in additional actions being brought against
us. This is further complicated by the fact that many diseases,
such as mesothelioma and cancer, have long latency periods in which
the disease process develops, thus making it impossible to
accurately predict the types and numbers of such claims in the near
future. While insurance coverages exist for many of these pending
asbestos litigations, others have no such coverages, resulting in
FirstEnergy being responsible for all defense expenditures, as well
as any settlements or verdict payouts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JodKzq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Defends Multiple Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is still defending itself against asbestos
lawsuits related to automotive components from the early 1900s,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches,
and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with
other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos
litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for
injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford
parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in these
personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of
asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older
vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities,
or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We believe that we
are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many
previously targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy or emerged
from bankruptcy relieved of liability for such claims.
"Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who
claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are
prepared to defend these cases and believe that the scientific
evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no
increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure
to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our
vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos
litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include
both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our
asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many
of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the
jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants, sometimes more than one hundred. Many
of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often we are
unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making
claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout
and defense costs may become significant in the future. Our
accrual for asbestos matters includes probable losses for both
asserted and unasserted claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/aMsYE7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that its indirect wholly owned subsidiary is
still a target in cases related to asbestos contamination matters.
The Company states, "Since approximately 1990, various FCX
affiliates have been named as defendants in a large number of
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or talc
allegedly contained in industrial products such as electrical wire
and cable, raw materials such as paint and joint compounds,
talc-based lubricants used in rubber manufacturing or from asbestos
contained in buildings and facilities located at properties owned
or operated by affiliates of FCX. Many of these suits involve a
large number of codefendants. Based on litigation results to date
and facts currently known, FCX believes there is a reasonable
possibility that losses may have been incurred related to these
matters; however, FCX also believes that the amounts of any such
losses, individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its
consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that
future developments will not alter this conclusion.
"There has been a significant increase in the number of cases
alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in talc-based
cosmetic and personal care products and in cases alleging exposure
to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining from 1964 until 1992 when
it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two
related transactions. Those transactions involved (i) a transfer
by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly
formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc
liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (ii) a sale of
the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In 2011, the
third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys),
an affiliate of Imerys S.A."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/9lVgD5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at December 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the costs to resolve cases
during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 were
immaterial individually and in the aggregate.
The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries,
including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis,
cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related
conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive
officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial
or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its
liability and that of its former executive officers. The cost to
resolve cases during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and
2017 was immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The
Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to
uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous
variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables
include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or
federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the
ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised
claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might
come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the
ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/IXL2OI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1,499 million at December
31, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities associated with
predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials business, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings
that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.
Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.
"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.
"The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of
the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related
asbestos claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend
such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the
Company as they are incurred. We have valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the
cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth
quarter each year.
"Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.
"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims
reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on
our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our
consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our
insurers."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/aRaWyL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.4-Bil. Liabilities at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded liabilities of US$2,357
million at December 31, 2019, for asbestos-related matters,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Honeywell is named in asbestos related
personal injury claims related to North American Refractories
Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction
Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/aRaWyL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. still faces numerous asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
Manitowoc Co. states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants. After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion of
management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows of the Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/CnV2Xn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 119 Cases at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 119 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. As of the
close of 2019, the Company had three pending silica cases and one
hundred nineteen pending asbestos cases. In total, 1,493 silica
cases and 64 asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any
lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior
to our acquisition of AMCOL. Ninety six new asbestos cases were
filed in 2019. Seven asbestos cases were dismissed during 2019 and
no silica cases were dismissed during 2019. Most of these claims
do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the
likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude
of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be
made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time
management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability,
if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a
material effect on its financial position or results of
operations.
"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The
Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for
sales prior to the initial public offering. Of the 119 pending
asbestos cases, 49 of the non-AMCOL cases are subject to
indemnification, in whole or in part, because the plaintiffs claim
liability based on sales of products that occurred either entirely
before the initial public offering, or both before and after the
initial public offering. Sixty two of the sixty six remaining
non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnity in part until dates of
exposure, which were not alleged in the complaint, can be
ascertained in discovery. In the 4 remaining non-AMCOL cases,
exposure is alleged to have been after the Company's initial public
offering in 1992. The remaining 4 cases involve AMCOL only, so no
Pfizer indemnity is available. Our experience has been that the
Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and
the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts
in these lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/6t7LeY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 597 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. continues to defend itself against approximately
597 asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 1,173 claims
as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the various defendants'
manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with
asbestos, asbestos-containing products or equipment or activities
that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These
plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence
of third-party manufactured products that the Company's subsidiary,
MRC Global (US) Inc., purportedly distributed.
"As of December 31, 2019, we are a named defendant in approximately
597 lawsuits involving approximately 1,173 claims. No asbestos
lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with the
majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these
claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial
majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly,
we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable"
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/CpAAtT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Defends Suits at Dec. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 28, 2019, that it is "vigorously defending"
against claims related to asbestos-containing products.
Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits
claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in
certain of its products. In many of these cases, the complaints
are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or
its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases
generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants.
"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and is vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been
recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the
likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company
does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to,
nor the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material
adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.
"There can be no assurance that future developments related to
pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result
of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs,
will not have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VD3mGZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SEC Claims Investigation on BorgWarner Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it is still fully cooperating with an SEC
investigation related to the Company's accounting for
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted.
The Company states, "On July 31, 2018, the Division of Enforcement
of the SEC informed the Company that it is conducting an
investigation related to the Company's accounting for
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted. The Company is fully
cooperating with the SEC in connection with its investigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/b15WHT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.6MM A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos claims constituted 23%
of its US$21.6 million net asbestos and environmental reserves at
December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended: December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due
to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the
absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii)
underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners
policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured
exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing
commercial risks, and homeowners policies.
"The total recorded net loss and loss expense reserves for these
claims were US$21.6 million as of December 31, 2019 and US$22.8
million as of December 31, 2018. The emergence of these claims
occurs over an extended period and is highly unpredictable. For
example, within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain
landfill sites are included on the National Priorities List ("NPL")
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA").
Once on the NPL, the USEPA determines an appropriate remediation
plan for these sites. A landfill can remain on the NPL for many
years until final approval for the removal of the site is granted
from the USEPA. The USEPA has the authority to re-open
previously-closed sites and return them to the NPL. We currently
have reserves for six customers related to three sites on the NPL.
"Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our
primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. At December 31, 2019, asbestos claims constituted 23%
of our US$21.6 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,
compared to 27% of our US$22.8 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves at December 31, 2018.
"Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants
other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking
underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in
policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or
maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill
exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively
consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of
business related to claims for groundwater contamination from
leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In
2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey
homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking underground
storage tanks for certain customers. At that time, existing
customers were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back oil tank
liability coverage. The exclusion applies to all new homeowners
policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible for the
buy-back option only if the tank meets specific eligibility
criteria.
"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-claim
basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often improves as
a claim develops, including judicial determinations of coverage
issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly.
"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting
patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are
significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarial
approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims
because past loss history is not indicative of future potential
loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can
be applied, such models can produce significantly different results
with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not
calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range.
"Historically, our asbestos and environmental claims have been
significantly lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty
than many of our competitors in the Standard Commercial Lines
industry. Prior to the introduction of the absolute pollution
exclusion endorsement in the mid-1980's, we primarily wrote
Standard Personal Lines, and therefore, our exposure to asbestos
and environmental claims has been limited."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/q7e03L
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $552.2MM Asbestos Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$552.2 million for asbestos product
liability matters at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims"). These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions, derivative lawsuits and contracts,
intellectual property and competitive claims), environmental
matters, product liability matters (predominately associated with
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials), and other risk
management matters (e.g., general liability, automobile, and
workers' compensation claims). Additionally, we may become subject
to other claims of which we are currently unaware, which may be
significant, or the claims of which we are aware may result in our
incurring significantly greater loss than we anticipate. While we
(and our subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product,
general liability, environmental, and directors' and officers'
liability insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies
in connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us
against potential loss exposures. Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures.
"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled US$592.4
million (including US$552.2 million for asbestos product liability
matters) and US$631.7 million (including US$587.5 million for
asbestos product liability matters) at December 31, 2019 and 2018,
respectively. Of these amounts, US$517.6 million and US$600.3
million are included in "Other long-term liabilities" within our
consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2019 and 2018,
respectively, with the remainder included in "Accrued expenses."
The liabilities we record for these claims are based on a number of
assumptions, including historical claims and payment experience
and, with respect to asbestos claims, actuarial estimates of the
future period during which additional claims are reasonably
foreseeable. While we base our assumptions on facts currently
known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments and
uncertainties. As a result, our current assumptions for estimating
these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may be required to
adjust these liabilities in the future, which could result in
charges to earnings. These variances relative to current
expectations could have a material impact on our financial position
and results of operations.
"Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the
industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we
no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or
more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously
defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment,
and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have
historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements.
During the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, our
payments for asbestos-related matters, net of respective insurance
recoveries of US$47.1 million, US$45.3 million, and US$57.3
million, were US$13.1 million, US$9.7 million and US$1.0 million,
respectively. A significant increase in claims, costs and/or
issues with existing insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or
insolvency of insurer(s)) could have a material adverse impact on
our share of future payments related to these matters, and, as a
result, have a material impact on our financial position, results
of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/pY8RDQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.28-Bil. Net Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. has net asbestos reserves of US$1,279
million at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property
and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions
and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos
claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and
policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a
significant number of asbestos claims. Factors underlying these
claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers
seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands
against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in
the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who
allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical
evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in
the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease
manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on
an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible
evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were
not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation,
contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment
patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.
"The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including
litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in
bankruptcy over coverage for asbestos-related claims. Many
coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through
settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated
demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement
negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may
include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but
which could result in settlements for larger amounts than
originally anticipated. Although the Company has seen a reduction
in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains
difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. As in the
past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement
opportunities.
"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages
arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is
possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including the Company, could be made in the future. It is
difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including
whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions
against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and
has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.
"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review
are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any
umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated
claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance;
the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos
claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses
or determinations, if any, including the determination as to
whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation
claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if
any, for that claim.
"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in 2019, 2018 and 2017
were US$224 million, US$225 million and US$271 million,
respectively. Approximately 4%, 9% and 4% of total net paid losses
in 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively, related to policyholders with
whom the Company had entered into settlement agreements limiting
the Company's liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/RrHtWc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 800 Active Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to defend itself against
approximately 800 active asbestos-related cases involving
approximately 2,390 plaintiffs as of December 31, 2019, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2019, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 800 active cases involving approximately
2,390 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,540, or approximately 65 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. As of December
31, 2018, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 755 cases
involving approximately 2,320 plaintiffs. Based upon U.S. Steel's
experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel will
likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.
"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall into
three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed
to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2) claims
made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U.S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws
by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.
"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition. However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/CEL0dM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims, including future asbestos-related defense and
processing costs, was US$1,165 million at December 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades. These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to the Corporation's products.
"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.
"At December 31, 2019, the asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims against UCC and Amchem, including future
asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was US$1,165
million, and approximately 18 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and approximately 82 percent related to
future claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/3HdjNO
*********
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 ***