/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200326.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 26, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 62
Headlines
ACE CASH EXPRESS: Faces Serna Suit Alleging Failure to Pay Wages
ALJ REGIONAL: Mediation in Marshall Suit Set for May 2020
ALTICE USA: Faces Phishing Attack-Related Class Action
ALTITUDE ADS: Berge Files RICO Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Wynn Class Suit Over Flying Passes
ARVEST CENTRAL: Lange Files Breach of Contract Suit in E.D. Ark.
AUSTRALIA: Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Mulls Class Action
BAKER HUGHES: Shareholders Class Suits Consolidated
BANK OF MONTREAL: Subsidiaries Ordered to Pay Back Undisclosed Fees
BAUDAX BIO: Bid to Nix Securities Suit vs. Recro Still Pending
BAY AREA CREDIT: Covarrubia Alleges Violation under FDCPA
BOB'S STORES: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CABINETPARTS.COM: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces Dean FLSA Class Suit in S.D. Texas
CALLON PETROLEUM: Pays $125,000 for Attorneys' Fees in Davis Suit
CARDINAL AUTISM: Violates FLSA, IMWL, IWPCA and BIPA, Fields Says
CENTENE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Sanchez Class Suit
CHART INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over Cryo Tank Failure Ongoing
CHART INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Cryo Storage Tank
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Consolidated Suit over Cyber-Attack Ongoing
CITY SPORTS: Williams Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging Violation of ADA
COLUMBIA GAS: Final Decision on $143M Deal Under Advisement
CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Settlement Proposed in Jail Class Action
CREDIT CENTER: Melcone Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
CSS INDUSTRIES: Defending Against Post's Merger Class Action
D F STAUFFER: Cruz Files Suit in Southern District of New York
DETROIT, MI: Homeowners Sue Over Property Assessments
DOORDASH: Judge Denies Motion to Avert Arbitration
DOORDASH: Must Pay $9.5MM in Arbitration Fees for Drivers
ELEVATE CREDIT: Rise Credit Unit Faces Class Suit in Washington
ENERFIN RESOURCES: Faces Browne Class Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
EVENFLO COMPANY: Big Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Epperson Says
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kids' Booster Seats Not Safe, Anderson Alleges
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Lod Suit Pending
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Suits over Helms-Burton Act Pending
EXPEDIA GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Kirkpatrick Suit Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Allred Suit Pending
FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Vehicle Owner's Defective Sunroof Suit
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Briefing on Class Certification Bid Completed
GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Caramazza Says
HEALTHY PAWS PET: Faces Benanav Class Suit in W.D. Washington
HONEYWELL INT'L: Kanefsky Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey
HONEYWELL INT'L: Named as Defendant in Resideo Securities Suit
HP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
ICNAUF INSULATION: Brancaccio Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA
IDEANOMICS INC: Miranda Suit in New York Ongoing
JUUL LABS: Pinellas School District Mulls Joining Class Action Suit
KILGORE ISD: Judge Hears Arguments in Tax Class Action
KRAFT HEINZ: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in Illinois Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Continues to Defend Osborne Class Action
L'OREAL: Faces Class Action Over Liquid Makeup Containers
LOGMEIN INC: Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit Ongoing
LOGMEIN INC: Suits Challenge Francisco Partners-Elliott Buyout
LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces Trado Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAVERICK CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Torres Claims
MGM RESORTS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Nevada
MONARCH RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA in California, Rai Suit Alleges
MULTIPLE INNOVATIONS: Varnadoe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
PETER NYGARD: Louis Bacon Feud Ensues Amid Class Action
PG&E CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
PG&E CORP: Bid to Dismiss PSPS Class Action Underway
PG&E CORP: Parties in Vataj Propose Case Schedule
POLARIS INC: Guzman and Albright Class Action Ongoing
POLARIS INC: Johannessohn et. al. Class Suit Ongoing
POLARIS INC: Sales Practices and Product Liability Suit Ongoing
PORTLAND GENERAL: Dismissal of Claims in Trojan Class Suit Upheld
POSIQ INC: Tiger Files Suit in Northern District of California
PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Pending
PPL CORP: Bid to Nix Talen Montana Retirement Plan Suit Pending
PRESS BOX: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Fernandez Suit Alleges
RED ROBIN: Delsalvo Sues in C.D. California Over Violation of ADA
RESCARE INC: Removes Diaz Suit to Northern District of California
RETIREMENT CONCEPTS: Class Suit Includes Summerland Seniors
ROCKSTAR GAMES: Faces Class Action Over "Hot Coffee" Rating
ROSE ACRE: Averts Egg Products Antitrust Class Action
SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless Individuals' Bid for Temporary TRO Denied
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Rosenauer Zantac Suit Moved From Mo. to Fla.
SANTEE COOPER: $520MM Settlement Proposed in Nuclear Project Suit
SANTEE COOPER: NextEra's Bid At Issue Amid Proposed Settlement
SASOL LTD: Robbins LLP Notes of Securities Class Suit Filing
SCHMITT SOUTH: American Family Files Insurance Suit in Illinois
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Fuller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
SIXT RENT A CAR: Siglin Suit Transferred to S.D. Calif.
SPOTIFY: Ex-Employee Files Misclassification Class Action Suit
STATE FARM: Wildfire Victims File Antitrust Class Action
SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE: Edwards Hits Missed Breaks, Seeks Overtime Pay
SUNSET MESA: Class Action Over Body Broker Business Pending
SVM MANAGEMENT: Case Decision Provides Framework for Employers
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Gericke Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
UNIFIN INC: Aber Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
UNITED STATES: Judge Prohibits CBP From Holding Detainees
VOLKSWAGEN: Agrees to Resume Talks to Settle Emissions Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Settles Consumer Abuses Investigations for $3 Billion
*********
ACE CASH EXPRESS: Faces Serna Suit Alleging Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY SERNA, as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of herself and
all others similarly aggrieved v. ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC., a Texas
corporation; POPULUS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Texas corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV-00877 (Cal.
Super., Merced Cty., Feb. 20, 2020), seeks civil penalties under
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act arising
from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay wages to
the Plaintiff and other current and former employees, who worked
for the Defendants in California as nonexempt, hourly employees and
who received at least one wage statement during their employment.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants since August 19, 2015,
through the present. Her job duties include disarming and arming
the alarm systems; counting money, opening, and closing cash
registers; placing marketing calls; and sending documents to
customers with loans due.
The Defendants operate a chain of check-cashing, payday loan stores
throughout the State of California and dozens more across the
United States. The Defendants offer a variety of financial and
banking-related services to their California customers, including
check cashing, payday loans, installment loans, money transfers,
prepaid debit cards, title loans, money orders, flare accounts, tax
services, among other services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
145 South Spring Street, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (310) 860-0770
Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com
ALJ REGIONAL: Mediation in Marshall Suit Set for May 2020
---------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the court has
ordered the parties in the case, Marshall v. Faneuil, Inc., to
undergo mediation scheduled for May 2020.
On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall filed a proposed class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ.
Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various
California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.
Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.
In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by
certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act. Faneuil demurred to the
PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed by the trial court.
The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery. A
court-ordered mediation is scheduled between the parties for May
2020. Faneuil believes this action is without merit and intends to
defend this case vigorously.
The Company has not accrued any amounts related to the Marshall
claim as of December 31, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.
ALTICE USA: Faces Phishing Attack-Related Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Altice USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company faces a
putative class action suit related to phishing attacks.
On November 2019, a phishing attack against employee email accounts
resulted in the exposure of certain employees' email credentials
and, as a result, the exposure of information in those accounts
including personal information of current and former employees as
well as some customers.
The company took measures to secure against these attacks and
responded by notifying affected persons, relevant state and federal
agencies and law enforcement agencies.
Altice said, "While the November 2019 attack appears to be
contained both from an exposure and cost perspective, the company
had learned of at least one putative class action having been filed
on February 13, 2020, and this and similar attacks could impose
costs, liability and reputational harm that could adversely affect
our operations and financial results.
Altice USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
broadband communications and video services in the United States.
The company operates in two segments, Cablevision and Cequel. It
delivers broadband, pay television, telephony services, Wi-Fi
hotspot access, proprietary content, and advertising services to
approximately 4.9 million residential and business customers.
Altice USA, Inc., is headquartered in Long Island City, New York.
ALTITUDE ADS: Berge Files RICO Class Action
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altitude ADS Limited.
The case is styled as Jules Vanden Berge, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Christopher
Masanto, Andrew Masanto, Altitude ADS Limited, Blooming Investments
Limited and Amplify Limited, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00509-H-BGS (S.D., Cal., March 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization filed pursuant to the Civil
Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act.
ALTITUDE ADS LIMITED is an active private limited company,
incorporated on 8 June 2016. The nature of the business is
Advertising agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq.
321 North Orange Street
Apartment 306
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (512) 420-8407
Email: kneupper@gmail.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Wynn Class Suit Over Flying Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIANNE WYNN v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00296-SRC
(E.D. Mo., Feb. 24, 2020), is brought as a class action lawsuit
seeking an order for American to perform its contract to provide 10
round trip Class D2 flying passes each calendar year for use by the
Plaintiff and the members of the Class and eligible family
members.
According to the complaint, American's unilateral downgrading of
the travel passes was not contemporaneously communicated to the
Plaintiff and the members of the Class. The Plaintiff did not learn
of the downgrade until July 2015 when she went on American's
retiree Web site to list herself for a flight from St. Louis to Los
Angeles, and saw that her status was no longer D2, but had been
changed to D-2R.
By making this change, American breached its contracts with the
Plaintiff and the members of the Class, the Plaintiff contends. She
insists that she and the members of the Class have been damaged by
American's breach of contract.
In the Spring of 2003, American offered the Separation Program as
an incentive for eligible flight attendants to terminate their
employment early in exchange for specified cash payments, a pension
enhancement, retiree medical benefits, life insurance, and
specified travel privileges. The Plaintiff says she and the members
of the Class met all of the Separation Program eligibility
requirements. In the Spring of 2003, the Plaintiff and the members
of the Class accepted American's offer by signing a special form
for that purpose provided by American.
The Plaintiff is a former American flight attendant.
American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen P. Press, Esq.
JACOBSON PRESS P.C.
222 S. Central Ave., Suite 550
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: 314 899 9789
Facsimile: 314 899 0282
E-mail: Press@ArchCityLawyers.com
- and -
Joe Dulle, Esq.
STONE, LEYTON & GERSHMAN, P.C.
7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 500
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: 314 721 7011
Facsimile: 314-721-8660
E-mail: Jdulle@stoneleyton.com
ARVEST CENTRAL: Lange Files Breach of Contract Suit in E.D. Ark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arvest Central
Mortgage Co. The case is styled as Robert Lange, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Arvest Central
Mortgage Co., Case No. 4:20-cv-00293-LPR (E.D. Ark., March 19,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract for breach of
contract.
Arvest Central Mortgage Company is a servicer of residential
mortgage loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
- and -
James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
BAILEY GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Fax: (202) 463-2103
Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
AUSTRALIA: Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Mulls Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Le Lievre, writing for Illawara Mercury, reports that the
Wreck Bay Aboriginal community has been forced to stop cultural
practices and stop teaching those practices to children following
the identification of toxic chemicals in soil and a waterway,
according to their annual report.
The community council's 2018-19 annual report said residents
intended to join a class action in the future, after the findings
of contamination had "considerable impact on the ability of the
community to exercise cultural rights".
"Unfortunately, there can be no positives out of the PFAS
contamination," the report stated.
The township, located in the Jervis Bay Territory, has its day to
day services provided by the ACT government.
The PFAS firefighting chemicals were detected in September 2018,
more than two years after the ACT government was warned about the
potential problem. The chemicals were used in firefighting foam and
are now known to persist in the environment.
After the chemicals were detected, authorities restricted access to
some areas, including a creek traditionally used to swim and catch
yabbies, among other things.
In 2018, Freedom of Information documents sought by the Sunday
Canberra Times revealed two residents had described the yabbies in
Wreck Bay as being "deformed".
In the annual report, the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council
said "no amount of lobbying" would change the fact that PFAS had
been detected at the South Coast locality.
"Signage has been erected by the department of health, trees have
been cut down at the Jervis Bay Public School and people have
stopped cultural practices and teaching of children in those
practices."
The report said the council is in discussions with Wollongong
University to consider potential research projects to help the
community look at solutions for keeping culture alive in places
where traditional gathering, hunting and fishing may no longer be
able to occur.
University of Wollongong Pro Vice-Chancellor of Inclusion and
Outreach Paul Chandler is helping the community to drive the
research project. Mr Chandler is also a Jervis Bay School board
member.
Mr Chandler told the Sunday Canberra Times one aspect of the
research will look at the psychological impact of the
contamination.
"Particularly for the children of the community, because they will
now potentially not grow up with the same relationship to country,"
Mr Chandler said.
"We're hoping to retain that connection to country that
distinguishes Aboriginal people."
"We're looking for solution-focused ways of ensuring cultural
practices can continue, as the bond between Aboriginal people and
their country is the most sacred and critical aspect of their
life."
Mr Chandler said the impact of the contamination was far greater
than the cultural aspects.
"The food stocks are suspect, so there's not just cultural issues
there, there are diet and health issues as well. A lot of people
have gone off eating seafood and moved to less nutritious
options."
He said in areas where the population was non-Indigenous, a
solution might be for the government to buy the homes and have
everyone move out, but that wasn't an option for residents of Wreck
Bay.
"We're connected to land, we're connected to country which we
consider our mother. If that bond is broken, then the community is
broken," he said. [GN]
BAKER HUGHES: Shareholders Class Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suits initiated by Tri-State Joint Fund and City of Providence have
been consolidated.
On July 3, 2017, the company closed the business combination (the
Transactions) of the oil and gas business of General Electric
Company (GE O&G) and Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI). As a result,
substantially all of the businesses of GE O&G and of BHI were
transferred to a subsidiary of the Company, Baker Hughes, a GE
company, LLC (BHGE LLC). Following the Transactions, the company
held a minority economic interest in BHGE LLC. However, the company
conducted and exercised full control over all activities of BHGE
LLC without the approval of any other member. Accordingly, the
company consolidated the financial results of BHGE LLC and reported
a noncontrolling interest in the company's consolidated financial
statements for the economic interest in BHGE LLC not held by the
company.
On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on
the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders
of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric
Company, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and
certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the
Transactions.
On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI
against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI,
and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same
claims in connection with the Transactions.
The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a
declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an
award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against
certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches.
The December 2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board
of Directors of BHI, except for Mr. Craighead who also served as
President and CEO of BHI. Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, who served as
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI, remain
named in the December 2019 complaint along with GE. The relief
sought in the consolidated complaint includes a declaration that
the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary duties and that GE
aided and abetted those breaches, an award of damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Baker Hughes said, "At this time, we are not able to predict the
outcome of these claims."
Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The
Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations,
petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers
gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators,
and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.
BANK OF MONTREAL: Subsidiaries Ordered to Pay Back Undisclosed Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Financial Post reports that a judge in Ontario's Superior Court
of Justice has ordered a trio of Bank of Montreal subsidiaries to
disgorge profits generated on $102.9 million in undisclosed fees
charged to about 200,000 holders of registered accounts such as
RRSPs, RESPs and tax-free savings accounts over a 10-year period.
The order, which the bank intends to appeal, is the result of a
class action lawsuit brought against BMO Nesbitt Burns, BMO
InvestorLine Inc., and BMO Trust Company, which alleged breach of
trust and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with undisclosed
fees on currency conversions in the registered accounts.
"After almost 14 years of litigation… (the) Court released its
decision today, finding in favour of the class and ordering
disgorgement of profits," law firm Paliare Roland Rosenberg
Rothstein LLP said in a statement Friday.
The fees were charged between 2001 and 2011 at BMO InvestorLine,
and between 2002 and 2011 at Nesbitt Burns.
We pride ourselves on being transparent with our clients
The court found that the BMO companies had breached their trust and
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose the amount of the markup
fees they charged on currency conversions in the registered
accounts, and paying themselves out of the trust accounts without
authorization.
However, Justice Edward P. Belobaba declined to impose punitive
damages.
"There is no evidence of any malicious, oppressive or high-handed
conduct that offends the courts sense of decency," he wrote in his
decision Friday.
A spokesman for BMO said the bank does not agree with the court's
interpretation of its agreements.
"We intend to appeal," said Paul Gammal. "We pride ourselves on
being transparent with our clients and work hard to provide them
with the clear and relevant information they deserve."
Odette Soriano, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the class
action, said the court's decision Friday "shows the effectiveness
of class actions in addressing… systematic breaches."
The judge made clear that financial institutions must take their
trust and fiduciary obligations very seriously, he said,
"particularly in the context of self-payment."
[GN]
BAUDAX BIO: Bid to Nix Securities Suit vs. Recro Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baudax Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit against Recro Pharma, Inc. (Recro),
is still pending.
On August 2019, Recro Pharma, Inc. announced its plans to separate
its acute care business from its CDMO business through a pro rata
distribution of the company's common stock to shareholders of
Recro. As a part of the Separation, Recro transferred the assets,
liabilities and operations of its acute care segment to the
company, pursuant to the terms of a Separation Agreement. On
November 21, 2019, the distribution date, each Recro shareholder
received one share of the company's common stock for every two and
one-half shares of Recro common stock held of record at the close
of business on November 15, 2019, the record date for the
Distribution.
Prior to November 21, 2019, all of the issued and outstanding
shares of common stock of the company were owned by Recro Pharma,
Inc.
On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against Recro and certain of
Recro's officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that
purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by Recro concerning the New
Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.
On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.
On February 8, 2019, Recro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on
April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and
briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. In response to
questions from the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs
with regard to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during
the fall of 2019.
There has been no decision on the motion.
Baudax said, "In connection with the Separation, the company
accepted assignment by Recro of all of Recro's obligations in
connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify
Recro for all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. We
believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against it. The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this
time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether
the outcome will be material to us."
Baudax Bio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes innovative products for acute care settings. The
Company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
BAY AREA CREDIT: Covarrubia Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Area Credit
Service Inc. The case is styled as Ricardo Covarrubia Jr,
individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Bay Area Credit Service Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00330-FB (W.D., Tex., March 17, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Bay Area Credit Service is a collection agency in San Jose,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 741-4799
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
BOB'S STORES: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob's Stores, LLC.
The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Bob's Stores, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01596-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
Bob's Stores is a chain of 30 retail stores in the northeastern
United States owned by Sports Direct International.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CABINETPARTS.COM: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cabinetparts.com,
Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Cabinetparts.com, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-01600-PGG-OTW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
CabinetParts.com sells cabinet hinges, cabinet hardware, drawer
slides, and kitchen organizers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces Dean FLSA Class Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Resources
Corp. The case is styled as Michael Dean, Terry Smith, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated v. California Resources Corp.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00091 (S.D. Tex., March 19, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
California Resources Corporation (CRC) is an oil and natural gas
exploration and production company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
- and -
David Bryce Jordan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
1301 McKinney St., Ste. 1900
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: (713) 652-4784
Email: djordan@littler.com
CALLON PETROLEUM: Pays $125,000 for Attorneys' Fees in Davis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Callon Petroleum Company said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated February 14, 2020, that
the company has agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the class action suit entitled,
Davis v. Flury, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0811-JTL..
On July 14, 2019, Callon Petroleum Company and Carrizo Oil & Gas,
Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to
which Callon agreed to acquire Carrizo in an all-stock transaction
(the "Proposed Transaction").
On August 20, 2019, Callon filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the
"Registration Statement"), which also served as a draft of the
joint proxy statement/prospectus to be sent to Callon's
stockholders to solicit stockholder approval of certain matters
related to the Proposed Transaction, and on October 9, 2019, Callon
filed with the SEC the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus.
On October 9, 2019, the members of Callon's board of directors were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery by one of the Company's
stockholders.
The suit is captioned Davis v. Flury, et al., C.A. No.
2019-0811-JTL. The complaint alleged that Callon's directors
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and/or
disclosure by failing to disclose to Callon's stockholders all
material information necessary to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction. Among other remedies, the
Plaintiff sought to hold Callon's directors liable for allegedly
breaching their fiduciary duties.
After the complaint was filed, and without admitting that the
allegations in the complaint had any merit, the Company determined
to include additional disclosures concerning the Proposed
Transaction in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 5, 2019,
to moot Plaintiff's claims.
On November 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice and proposed order
to voluntarily dismiss the claim. On January 22, 2020, the Court
approved a notice under which the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
the action with prejudice as to himself only, but without prejudice
as to any other putative class member. The Court retained
jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated
application of Plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the supplemental
disclosures included in the Form 8-K filed on November 5, 2019.
Without admitting that the allegations in the complaint had any
merit, the Company subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to
Plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full
satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the
action. The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no
judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or
their reasonableness.
Callon Petroleum Company is a Natchez, MS-based exploration and
production company with a primary focus in the Permian Basin in
West Texas. The company was founded in 1950, but entered the
Permian Basin in 2009, and became a pure-play Permian operator in
Q4 2013 after divesting the remainder of its offshore Gulf of
Mexico properties.
CARDINAL AUTISM: Violates FLSA, IMWL, IWPCA and BIPA, Fields Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER FIELDS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CARDINAL AUTISM SERVICES LLC and CORNERSTONES AUTISM
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01277 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked as Behavior
Therapists (BTs) and/or Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs) in
Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, and Texas. The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants in Southern Illinois as BT from July
2019 to November 2019, and as an RBT from November 2019 to December
2019.
The Plaintiff contends that BTs and RBTs regularly worked over 40
hours in a workweek but the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages
and/or overtime compensation for all hours worked. He adds that the
Defendants required BTs and RBTs to scan their fingerprints on
their mobile devices in order to access Rethink and "Paylocity," an
online database through which Defendant provided their pay
information. He argues that the Defendants did not obtain prior
consent from BTs and RBTs to the collection of their fingerprints.
The Defendants are providers of home-based Applied Behavior
Analysis therapy services to children and teens with autism. The
Defendants employ Bts and RBTs who travel to patients' homes and
provide individualized treatment programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
CENTENE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Sanchez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit entitled, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp.,
et al.
On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action,
Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July
2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss complaint in
September 2017.
In August 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
in part and denied it in part, dismissing allegations regarding
certain statements and thereby narrowing the time period to which
the allegations will be subject. The case is now in the discovery
phase.
Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a
healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to
government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured
and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two
segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides
member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in
accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also
provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist
members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company
is based in St. Louis, Missouri.
CHART INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over Cryo Tank Failure Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged
failure of its aluminum cryobiological storage tank product.
During the second quarter of 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits
(including a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and
other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless
steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the
Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California.
The company continues to evaluate the merits of such claims in
light of the information available to date regarding use,
maintenance and operation of the tank which has been out of the
company's custody for the past six years when it was sold to the
Pacific Fertility Center through an independent distributor.
Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from
the lawsuits has not been recorded because a potential loss is not
currently probable or estimable.
Chart said, "We have asserted various defenses against the claims
in the lawsuits, including a defense that since manufacture, we
were not in any way involved with the installation, ongoing
maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility center
cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of the
tank."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.
CHART INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Cryo Storage Tank
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement has been
reached in the class action suit filed before the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice with respect to the alleged failure of an
aluminum cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at
The Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke,
Ontario.
Chart has been named in a purported class action lawsuits filed
during the second quarter of 2018 in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against the Company and other defendants with respect to
the alleged failure of an aluminum cryobiological storage tank
(model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The Toronto Institute for
Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.
Chart said, "A settlement has been reached by the parties in the
lawsuit with no material effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Consolidated Suit over Cyber-Attack Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit related to
cyber-attack.
The company was a victim of a previously disclosed cyber attack, in
which international cyber criminals gained intermittent access to
its internal network through "password spraying", and over a
limited number of days between October 13, 2018 and March 8, 2019,
stole business documents and files from a shared network drive and
a drive associated with a web-based tool used in the company's
consulting practice. The company conducted an investigation and
completed its review of documents and files that may have been
accessed or were stolen in this incident.
Citrix said, "Although it is difficult to predict the ultimate
outcome of this cyberattack, to date, three putative class action
lawsuits have been filed against us in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. These matters, Howard
v. Citrix, Jackson and Sargent v. Citrix, and Ramus, Young and
Charles v. Citrix, were filed on May 24, 2019, May 30, 2019, and
June 23, 2019, respectively, and have been consolidated."
The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of the
company's current and former employees (and their dependents),
generally claim to have been harmed by the company's alleged
actions and/or omissions in connection with this incident and their
personal data. They assert a variety of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages or other related relief.
Citrix further said, "We are unable to currently determine the
ultimate outcome of these proceedings or the potential exposure or
loss, if any, because the legal proceedings remain in the early
stages, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or
classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if
certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be
resolved."
Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
CITY SPORTS: Williams Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Sports, Inc. The
case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. City Sports, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01601-AT (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
City Sports is an American sporting goods retailer that re-launched
in the spring of 2017 after being purchased during bankruptcy
liquidation in December 2015.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
COLUMBIA GAS: Final Decision on $143M Deal Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Huffaker, writing for Patch, reports that a judicial
decision is pending on the $143 million Columbia Gas class action
settlement after a hearing Feb. 27, 2020. Superior Court Judge
James Lang heard arguments for and against the proposed settlement,
after granting preliminary approval in October. Under the
settlement, payouts to victims of the Sept. 2018 Merrimack Valley
gas explosions would range from $50 to $15,000 depending on
impact.
The hearing came on the heals of the announcement that Columbia Gas
would plea guilty to federal charges of violating the Pipeline
Safety Act. As part of that deal, the utility's parent company
NiSource will pay a $53 million fine, sell Columbia Gas of
Massachusetts and leave the state. NiSource announced that
Eversource would be buying the company for $1.1 billion.
The Sept. 13, 2018 accident ultimately killed one, injured 22, and
damaged 131 structures in Andover, Lawrence and North Andover, as
well as leaving many residents unable to return to their homes for
months. The National Transportation Safety Board's final report on
the accident, released in October, found that "weak engineering
management" by Columbia Gas was responsible for the deadly
explosions. The company also faces investigations at the state
level. [GN]
CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against the consolidated Casey-Fitzwater class action suit
in West Virginia federal court.
A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company
(CCC), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. (COK), CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co.,
LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging
ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care
benefits.
Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.
Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.
On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.
On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts and a scheduling order for
the remaining individual claims was set on October 16, 2019.
The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
COOK COUNTY, IL: Settlement Proposed in Jail Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Frank Main, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that a $14
million legal settlement is being proposed by attorneys for Cook
County public defenders and law clerks whose class-action lawsuit
claims they were subjected to a hostile work environment in which
inmates they represented were masturbating in front of them.
On Friday, attorneys for the 534 public defenders and law clerks
asked U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly to approve the proposed
settlement with Public Defender Amy Campanelli and Sheriff Tom
Dart, who were named as defendants.
A similar class-action lawsuit by sheriff's employees is pending.
Under the proposed settlement, the public defenders and law clerks
would get a minimum of $9.5 million. Most of the rest -- about 30
percent -- would go to their lawyers.
The lawsuit was filed in November 2017. Kennelly then issued an
injunction to stop the inmates from exposing themselves in front of
female public defenders and law clerks.
The judge ordered that inmates who engage in such behavior be
required to wear uniforms that limit their access to their groins.
He also ordered they be handcuffed behind their backs when they
meet with their attorneys and during their transport between jail
and court.
In their responses to the lawsuit, Dart and Campanelli have denied
they ignored the problem and allowed a harsh work environment.
In a story published in 2016, nearly two years before the lawsuit
was filed, the Sun-Times reported that inmates had banded together
to attack guards and other officials.
The inmates called themselves the Savage Life gang. Not only were
they masturbating in front of female employees in jail and court,
they also were throwing feces and urine at guards. The story
documented 219 incidents of inmates exposing themselves or
masturbating in public between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 20, 2016.
The story said the sheriff pushed for a new law that allowed his
office to cancel inmates' "good time" for committing such acts.
Inmates accumulate one day of good time for each day behind bars,
which allows them to shorten their sentences.
But Campanelli sent a letter to the sheriff in March 2017 saying
the problem was getting worse. "We are in the midst of a crisis
that is affecting my ability to provide legal representation to my
clients," she wrote.
Inmates were masturbating in front of her female attorneys and law
clerks every day, Campanelli wrote. She said some of her employees
were considering filing a hostile-workplace claim and asked Dart
for an increased security presence in lockups where her employees
come in contact with inmates.
In a court filing on Feb. 21 Nieves Bolanos, an attorney for the
public defenders and clerks, told Kennelly the masturbation and
exposure incidents have "dramatically declined" since the judge
issued his injunction in late 2017 to require problem inmates to
wear the special jumpsuits and be handcuffed. [GN]
CREDIT CENTER: Melcone Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Center, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristina Melcone, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Credit Center, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-01468 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2020).
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credit Center, Inc. is a full service collection agency in
operation for over 45 years specializing in receivables management,
debt collections, ambulance and dental billing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
CSS INDUSTRIES: Defending Against Post's Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CSS Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
facing a class action suit entitled, Joseph Post vs. CSS
Industries, Inc. et. al. (1:20-cv-00192-UNA).
On January 20, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with IG Design Group Americas,
Inc., a Georgia corporation ("Parent"), TOM MERGER SUB INC., a
Delaware corporation and direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), and IG Design Group Plc, a public limited company
incorporated and registered in England and Wales ("TopCo Parent").
On February 10, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by
a purported stockholder of the Company in connection with the
pending Offer and the Merger. The action captioned Joseph Post vs.
CSS Industries, Inc. et. al. (1:20-cv-00192-UNA), alleges that the
Company, Merger Sub, Parent, Design Group and the directors of the
Company violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by filing a Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the SEC that contains allegedly misleading
statements and omissions concerning financial projections for the
Company, the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion and certain
background information relating to the Contemplated Transactions.
The Post Complaint seeks various remedies, including enjoining the
Merger from being consummated, or in the event the Merger is
consummated, rescission or rescissory damages, and costs and fees
relating to the lawsuit. The Post Complaint further seeks judgments
(i) directing the defendants to file a Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement that does not contain any
untrue statements of material fact and states all material facts
required in it or necessary to make the statements within it not
misleading and (ii) declaring that the defendants violated Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.
CSS said, "While it is not possible to predict the outcome of
litigation matters with certainty, the Company believes that the
claims raised in the Stein Complaint, the Halberstam Complaint and
the Post Complaint are without merit. The foregoing descriptions
are qualified in their entirety by reference to the respective
complaints, each of which is filed as an exhibit to the Company’s
Schedule 14D-9. Additional legal proceedings arising out of or
relating to the Offer, the Merger or the other Contemplated
Transactions may be filed in the future."
CSS Industries, Inc., a consumer products company, designs,
manufactures, procures, distributes, and sells seasonal, gift, and
craft products principally to mass market retailers in the United
States and Canada. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting,
Pennsylvania.
D F STAUFFER: Cruz Files Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D F Stauffer Biscuit
Co Inc. The case is styled as Gilberto Cruz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. D F Stauffer Biscuit Co
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02402 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.
D F Stauffer Biscuit Co Inc. was founded in 2008. The Company's
line of business includes the making of fresh cookies, crackers,
pretzels, and other dry bakery products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
DETROIT, MI: Homeowners Sue Over Property Assessments
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a group of Detroit homeowners claimed the city overtaxed thousands
of residents in a class action filed in federal court on Feb. 13.
Flossie Byrd, Deborah Howard, Jeffrey Stevenson and William and
Billie Hickey sued the city, Mayor Michael Duggan, Wayne County and
other city and state officials for allegedly violating their
due-process rights.
They criticized how Detroit followed up on its 2017 residential
property reappraisal, which they called "more than a half-century
overdue."
"The city failed to notify any Detroit homeowners of their
brand-new property assessments until it became virtually impossible
for any homeowner to appeal the determination," the complaint
states.
As a result, many homeowners were allegedly forced "to pay more
than they should owe, face delinquency, or even fall prey to
property tax foreclosure."
After discovering that the notices would be sent late, "the city of
Detroit scrambled to announce remedial measures that were so poorly
communicated that they deprived all Detroit homeowners of
meaningful notice and an opportunity to appeal," the complaint
states.
According to the lawsuit, residents who want to appeal their
assessments must go through three levels of review boards, starting
with the Board of Assessors.
Facing a Feb. 18 deadline, 260,000 homeowners received their
assessments and notices of the right to appeal no earlier than Feb.
14, 2017, according to the lawsuit.
"Knowing they sent all notices late, the Detroit defendants made
halfhearted -- and constitutionally inadequate -- attempts to
remedy the situation that sowed layer upon layer of legal error and
public confusion," the complaint states.
The second level deadline was March 13, 2017. The final appeals
level, the Michigan Tax Tribunal, had a July 31 deadline that
year.
The plaintiffs asked the court for a declaration that their rights
were violated, along with an order allowing them to appeal their
2017 taxes retroactively.
They also seek a requirement that the notices be sent with enough
time for an appeal, with a 30-day extension given to homeowners who
receive late notices.
When home values plummeted in 2008, Detroit did not adjust its tax
assessments, according to the complaint.
"As a result, most of the city's property taxes remained
dramatically inflated. These excessive taxes violated the Michigan
Constitution, which caps property tax assessments at 50 percent of
a property's true cash value, otherwise known as fair market
value," the complaint states.
The plaintiffs additionally accused Wayne County of unjust
enrichment by foreclosing on delinquent homeowners who were unable
to appeal their assessments. Stevenson's home is one of those in
danger of foreclosure.
With this in mind, the lawsuit calls for a moratorium on Wayne
County foreclosures, as well as damages in the amount of the
assessed value of foreclosed properties.
The 2017 reassessment came as a result of the state taking over
Detroit's Assessment Division in 2014. The plaintiffs also cited a
Detroit News article estimating that the city's homeowners were
overtaxed by $600 million from 2010 to 2019.
Rami Fakhouri of the Chicago law firm Goldman Ismail Tomaselli
Brennan & Baum is representing the plaintiffs. Fakhouri said he
looks forward to litigating the claims of "Detroit homeowners who
are seeking to vindicate their constitutional right to fair and
adequate notice of their property tax obligations."
"Many Detroiters were deprived of a realistic opportunity to appeal
their improperly-assessed taxes, leading them to face excessive tax
bills, delinquency, and even foreclosure," he said.
The Detroit Ombudsman did not immediately respond to an email
request for comment.
DOORDASH: Judge Denies Motion to Avert Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------
Texarkana Gazette reports that it's not surprising why employers
often require their workers to take wage and workplace complaints
to arbitration instead of court: The big companies almost always
win.
Here's a case involving the gig economy company DoorDash that turns
that custom on its head. The company, facing a torrent of more than
5,800 arbitration claims filed by its workers, is insisting they go
to court instead.
And the workers, who customarily try to get their cases heard in
court instead of an arbitrator, have moved to force DoorDash to
arbitrate.
The company's goal is to avoid having to pay arbitration fees of
$12 million to $20 million. But DoorDash may have no choice, since
a federal judge in San Francisco just denied its motion to avert
arbitration.
The workers maintain that DoorDash has improperly classified them
as independent contractors rather than employees.
Federal Judge William Alsup of San Francisco plainly suspected that
DoorDash wielded the arbitration agreements signed by its workers
as weapons to discourage the workers from filing claims.
His suspicions were aroused when the company, facing thousands of
arbitration claims, refused to pay its share of the filing fees.
That prompted the arbitration agency, the American Arbitration
Association, to cancel all the arbitration cases.
For decades, Alsup observed in a blistering order issued on Feb.
17, employers have forced arbitration clauses upon their workers.
"DoorDash, faced with having to actually honor its side of the
bargain, now blanches at the cost," he wrote.
Instead, Doordash is trying to force the workers to sue it in
court, a much more costly and burdensome process. "Irony upon
irony," Alsup wrote, in ordering the arbitrations to proceed. "This
hypocrisy will not be blessed, at least by this order."
Travis Lenkner, an attorney for the workers, called Alsup's ruling
"a significant ruling for individuals who are forced to sign
arbitration clauses as a condition of performing work. Companies
can't prohibit class actions and require workers to engage in
individual arbitration, only to refuse to arbitrate with workers
who demand it."
DoorDash's attorney on the case, James P. Fogelman of Gibson Dunn,
didn't respond to a request for comment.
Consider the background of this juridical man-bites-dog story.
As we've reported before, arbitration can be an inexpensive and
efficient means of resolving disputes when all the parties come to
the table with equivalent standing -- two businesses jousting with
each other, for instance.
When it's used by employers against employees, or by corporations
against aggrieved customers, and when it's forced down
complainants' throats against their wishes, however, it's a
scourge.
President Obama recognized that in 2014, when he outlawed
arbitration in workplace discrimination, sexual assault or sexual
harassment cases brought against federal contractors.
Arbitration typically favors the bigger parties -- they know their
way around the process better, and they can take better advantage
of what are often very loose standards of evidence and testimony in
arbitration.
Like many other employers, DoorDash stuck an arbitration
requirements into its contract with its couriers, whom it calls
"Dashers." These are individuals who deliver food orders placed by
the gig company's customers from local restaurants.
The contracts at issue in the case before Alsup said that the
company and the workers "mutually" agreed to bring all disputes to
arbitration, including disputes over whether the workers were
properly classified as independent contractors.
According to the contract, both parties -- company and worker --
were barred from bringing their dispute to court or resorting to
class action filings. The pact required workers to pay a filing fee
of $300 to bring an arbitration case, and DoorDash to pay $1,900.
Starting last March, workers represented by the Chicago law firm
Keller Lenkner took DoorDash at its word. The first tranche of
3,000 claims would have obligated DoorDash to pay more than $20
million in filing and administrative fees and arbitrators'
retainers, according to the company's law firm, Gibson Dunn. In
time, some 6,000 arbitration claims were filed against the
company.
DoorDash has contended that this was all part of a "shakedown
scheme" by Keller Lenkner, since the Chicago firm simultaneously
offered to negotiate a non-arbitration settlement.
The company eventually claimed that there was no proof that more
than 800 of the claimants had actually agreed to the arbitration
clause, and they were dropped from the litigation. But there's no
dispute that DoorDash's arbitration clause was valid for the others
-- by Alsup's reckoning, 5,879 couriers.
In response to the torrent of claims, Alsup determined, DoorDash
simply refused to pay the administrative fees to the American
Arbitration Association. As a result, on Nov. 8, the arbitration
association closed the files. The workers filed a motion to compel
arbitration -- typically a motion filed by employers attempting to
quash lawsuits.
Alsup was unimpressed by DoorDash's position. At a Nov. 25 hearing,
he upbraided the company's lawyer, James P. Fogelman: "Your law
firm and all the defense law firms have tried for 30 years to keep
plaintiffs out of court in employment cases," he said.
"So finally somebody says: OK, we'll take you to arbitration. And
suddenly it's not in your interest anymore. And now you're wiggling
around trying to figure some way to squirm out of your own
agreement. There is a lot of poetic justice here."
This isn't the first such order to come out of federal court in
Northern California. On Oct. 22, U.S. Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong
of Oakland found in favor of some 5,200 couriers and against
Postmates, another gig company offering food delivery services.
The facts were similar to the DoorDash case -- Postmates required
its workers to sign arbitration agreements, then faced a flood of
arbitration claims and refused to pay the fees.
Armstrong felt no more sympathy for Postmates than Alsup did for
DoorDash. The workers, she wrote, were given no option other than
to submit their claims that they were misclassified as independent
contractors to arbitration, individually, "which is precisely what
they did."
She concluded: "The possibility that Postmates now be required to
submit a sizable arbitration fee is a direct result of the
mandatory arbitration clause and class action waiver that Postmates
has imposed upon each of its couriers." She ordered the cases to go
to arbitration, though she left it to the arbitrators to decide
whether or when to pay the arbitration fees.
And in January 2019, the fast-food company Chipotle Mexican Grill
squealed for mercy before a federal judge in Colorado. In that
case, Chipotle has been fighting claims of wage theft lodged in
federal court by current and former workers since July 2013, with
the army of plaintiffs having grown to about 10,000 strong.
The company thought it had won a major victory by persuading the
judge to eject more than 2,800 of those workers from the court
proceedings because they had signed an agreement to bring their
claims only via arbitration.
But as a result, Chipotle could be facing thousands of individual
arbitration cases spread across the country, almost all the
expenses of which it may have to shoulder itself -- potentially
tens of thousands of dollars per case.
"We didn't ask for this," Kent Williams, a Minnesota attorney
directly representing hundreds of plaintiffs, told me last year.
"Chipotle asked for it." The litigation is still pending.
None of this necessarily means that employers are going to lose
their taste for mandatory arbitration, especially since judges
share their taste for arbitration, which keeps thousands of little
cases off their own dockets. In the DoorDash and Postmates cases,
the interests of the judges and the workers happened to coincide,
but that may not happen all the time.
What the judges didn't like in these cases was the companies'
trying to renege on their own contracts.
"Other companies facing arbitration demands should see the writing
on the wall," Lenkner says. "Courts are not going to let them get
away with creating a 'heads we win, tails you lose' situation that
prevents individual workers or customers from pursuing their
claims." [GN]
DOORDASH: Must Pay $9.5MM in Arbitration Fees for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
rejecting claims that the legal process it forced on workers is
unfair, a federal judge on Feb. 10 ordered food-delivery service
DoorDash to pay $9.5 million in arbitration fees for 5,010 delivery
drivers' labor demands against the company.
"You're going to pay that money," U.S. District Judge William Alsup
said in court. "You don't want to pay millions of dollars, but
that's what you bargained to do and you're going to do it."
Barred from filing labor suits in court under the terms of a
required arbitration contract, 6,250 DoorDash drivers brought their
claims to an arbitrator. Last fall, the American Arbitration
Association found each worker met the minimum requirements for
filing a claim and ordered DoorDash to pay $12 million in fees. The
workers paid $1.2 million in filing fees, or $300 per case.
DoorDash refused to pay its share of fees, arguing the workers
failed to specify how much money they were seeking or prove they
had a valid arbitration deal with the company.
In response, the delivery drivers filed two motions to compel
arbitration, which landed in Alsup's court. DoorDash told Alsup the
company shouldn't have to pay those fees because the petitioners'
law firm, Chicago-based Keller Lenkner, failed to properly vet its
clients' claims or prove it had an attorney-client relationship
with each worker.
According to DoorDash, about 143 petitioners never signed up or
finished the process of signing up to work for DoorDash. Another
133 did sign up but never performed any work using the DoorDash
app. In response, Keller Lenkner agreed to drop 361 petitioners
from its motion to compel, "essentially conceding there is no basis
to arbitrate their claims," Doordash argued in its opposition
brief.
Despite those problems, Alsup said he would not deny relief to the
majority of petitioners on that basis.
"Out of those 6,000 there probably are a few people where you
pulled the wool over my eyes, but I think the vast majority of
these are legit," the judge said. "I'm not going to hold up that
relief just because there are going to be a few glitches."
Judge Alsup also rejected DoorDash's motion to stay the case
pending approval of a proposed $39.5 million labor settlement in
state court for drivers in California and Massachusetts. That case
was transferred to the complex litigation division in San Francisco
Superior Court in January and remains on hold.
However, the judge said he would not compel arbitration for 869
workers that failed to submit signed declarations stating that they
worked for DoorDash and agreed to arbitrate labor disputes.
DoorDash also noted that 448 petitioners appear to be represented
by other firms based on client lists and arbitration demands
submitted to DoorDash by other law firms. Electronic signature
stamps for 400 petitioner declarations also named a different New
York-based lawyer and omitted references to the firm Keller
Lenkner, raising more questions about each petitioners' true legal
representative.
Alsup said the arbitrator will handle those disputes and that
Keller Lenkner may be ordered to pay DoorDash's legal fees if the
arbitrator finds there were "shenanigans" involved.
"That's going to be for Mr. Arbitrator or Mrs. Arbitrator but not
me," Alsup said.
In total, Keller Lenkner sought to compel arbitration for 5,879
workers. Alsup said he would grant the motion for 5,010 workers who
submitted valid declarations affirming that they worked for
DoorDash and signed a valid arbitration contract with the company.
At $1,900 per case, DoorDash must pay $9.5 million.
In May 2019, the company was valued at $12.6 billion.
Attorney Warren Postman, of Keller Lenkner, described Alsup's
decision as a major victory for gig economy workers misclassified
as independent contractors and fighting for minimum wage.
"They've been shut out of every forum for months, and in some cases
years," Postman said. "I'm glad our clients will have their day to
have their claims heard."
Late last year, Alsup allowed the petitioners to investigate claims
that DoorDash worked with a new arbitrator to concoct rules that
would benefit DoorDash while disadvantaging workers.
DoorDash introduced new arbitration terms on Nov. 9, which workers
must agree to before they can log onto the DoorDash app to work and
get paid. The new terms require workers arbitrate disputes through
the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution
(CPR). Under the CPR rules, only 10 arbitration cases can proceed
at once when more than 30 cases are filed. The rules also mandate
90-day mediation sessions and other conditions, which the
petitioners say could delay their cases for years.
DoorDash and CPR both maintain the new rules were created in
response to mass arbitration demands, but they say multiple
stakeholders were involved in the development of a "fair and
neutral process" that expedites a small number of "test" or
bellwether cases followed by a mediation process that encourages
resolution of all claims.
On Feb. 10, Alsup said he would deny motions to seal communications
between DoorDash's law firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, and CPR,
adding he will give DoorDash 14 days to appeal his decision.
"There's a public interest in the world at large knowing that
someone like CPR that holds itself out to be an impartial agency is
actually being guided by the employer side," Alsup said.
DoorDash attorney Joshua Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- of
Gibson Dunn, declined to comment after the hearing and did not
immediately respond to a follow-up email seeking comment.
ELEVATE CREDIT: Rise Credit Unit Faces Class Suit in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elevate Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Rise Credit Service
of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity Financial, LLC, a company
wholly owned subsidiary, is facing a class action suit in
Washington State.
On January 27, 2020, an Elevate wholly-owned subsidiary, Rise
Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity Financial, LLC
and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify Financial were sued
in a class action lawsuit in Washington state.
The Plaintiff in the case claims that Rise and others are engaged
in "predatory lending practices that target financially vulnerable
consumers" and have violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act
by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices.
Elevate disagrees that it has violated the state's Consumer
Protection Act and it intends to vigorously defend its position.
Elevate Credit, Inc. provide online credit solutions to consumers
and banks in the United States (the "US") and the United Kingdom
(the "UK") who are not well-served by traditional bank products and
who are looking for better options than payday loans, title loans,
pawn and storefront installment loans. The company is based in
Forth Worth, Texas.
ENERFIN RESOURCES: Faces Browne Class Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enerfin Resources
Company, et al. The case is styled as Marian D. Browne, Trustee, of
the Joanne Harris Deitrich Trust A, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Enerfin Resources Company, a Texas
corporation, Enerfin Resources I Limited Partnership, a Texas
limited partnership, Case No. 6:20-cv-00084-KEW (E.D. Okla., March
19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Enerfin Resources Company and its affiliates own and operate
natural gas and crude oil midstream field services assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan Edward Bradford, Esq.
LANIER LAW FIRM
431 W Main St., Ste. D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 698-2700
Fax: (405) 234-5506
Email: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
EVENFLO COMPANY: Big Kid Booster Seat Is Defective, Epperson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH EPPERSON, ELIZABETH GRANILLO, and CASEY HASH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10359-DJC (D. Mass., Feb. 21, 2020), seeks
to put an end to Evenflo's improper marketing of Big Kid Booster,
and sales tactics of putting profits over the safety of American
children.
In the early 2000s and in order to address the need for a vehicular
safety device for young children too big for an infant car seat,
but still too small or too young to properly fit or to stay in a
seat belt, companies began selling booster seats which elevated
children so that the automobile seat belts fit more securely.
According to the complaint, in the highly competitive market for
booster seats, Evenflo sells the Big Kid Booster Seat (Big Kid
Booster), a seat cushion used to elevate children sitting in
automobiles. Evenflo labels and markets the Big Kid Booster in the
United States as "safe" for children as light as 30 pounds and as
young as three years old. Evenflo boasts that the Big Kid Booster
is the "the best way to minimize injuries to your child" and
claimed that it would "greatly reduce the risk of serious injury to
your child in a crash." But according to recently published
reports, Evenflo has known since at least 2008 if not earlier that
its Big Kid Booster is not safe 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 accidents, the Plaintiff
avers.
Evenflo designed its own side-impact tests and yet failed even
those lax standards. Recently released video from 2008 testing
shows that Evenflo's tests unmistakably demonstrated that a child
seated in its booster could be in grave danger in such a crash.
Evenflo's tests were not comparable to federal government tests,
which simulate accidents at higher speeds and involving impacts
into external objects; Evenflo's tests merely simulated rapid
deceleration, says the complaint.
Evenflo was first formed in the 1920s as a manufacturer of products
related to baby feeding. For many years, Evenflo produced baby
bottles, nipples, and other related accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC
19 Belmont St.
S. Easton, MA 02375
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
E-mail: kim.dougherty@andruswagstaff.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Christopher E. Coleman, Esq.
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: chalos@lchb.com
ccoleman@lchb.com
jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
4849 North Milwaukee Avenue, No. 300
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (773) 545 9607
E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
EVENFLO COMPANY: Kids' Booster Seats Not Safe, Anderson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAJAH ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
Case 2:20-cv-00287-LA (E.D. Wis., Feb. 21, 2020) is a class action
lawsuit seeking damages and equitable relief on her own behalf and
on behalf of members of the Class, each of whom purchased one or
more booster seats manufactured and marketed by Evenflo.
Evenflo manufactures and markets several types of infant and child
products and gear. Evenflo manufactures and markets "Big Kid"
Booster Seats, which Evenflo advertises as safe, "side impact
tested," the "BEST BET BOOSTER," and safe for children weighing 30
pounds or more. Evenflo's "Big Kid" Booster Seats are widely
available and sold at brick-and-mortar and online retailers such as
Amazon.com, WalMart, Target, and Buy Buy Baby. Evenflo advertised
on its "Big Kid" Booster Seats that the product was "SIDE IMPACT
TESTED," and claimed on its website that the side impact tests
performed on Evenflo's "Big Kid" Booster seats were "rigorous."
To the detriment of parents and children nationwide, the
Defendant's marketing of the Booster Seat is deceptive and
misleading, as the use of booster seats by children weighing less
than 40 pounds is in direct contravention to the safety
recommendations of American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP"), and
further, there is no federal safety standard or test governing side
impact for car seats. Given the absence of any such standard or
test, the Defendant created its own test -- with no basis in safety
or science -- and then proceeded to consistently give itself a
passing grade and market the Booster Seat as "side impact tested."
Contrary to Evenflo's marketing and safety representations, it has
recently been revealed that the Defendant has known for a
significant period of time that the Booster Seat is not safe for
children lighter than 40 pounds, and that the Defendant's own
testing confirmed that a child seated in the Booster Seat could be
in grave danger in the event of a side-impact collision.
Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactures and markets infant and juvenile
products. The Company offers juvenile travel systems, car seats,
strollers, child carriers, saucers, gates, jumpers, monitors, and
oral development items. Evenflo serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
4532 N. Oakland Ave.
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
Telephone: (414) 210-3868
E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
harper@wbmllp.com
martha@wbmllp.com
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Lod Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion seeking
class certification of the lawsuit before the District Court in
Lod, Israel, is pending.
In or around January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the District Court in Lod, Israel against a number of
online travel companies including Expedia, Inc. and Hotels.com.
The plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants violated
Israeli consumer laws by limiting hotel price competition.
The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification which
defendants will oppose.
Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Suits over Helms-Burton Act Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion
to dismiss three of six lawsuits over violation of the Helms-Burton
Act remains pending.
On September 11, 2019, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging
violations of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidary Act, also knowns as the Helms-Burton Act.
The complaint, filed by Marciela Mata, at al., alleges that class
members hold an interest in property that was expropriated by the
Cuban government and subsequently became the location of a hotel
owned by Melia Hotels International.
It further alleges that Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com, and Orbitz LLC
trafficked in that property by facilitating reservations for
travelers.
Between September 2019 and January 2020, two additional class
actions and three individual actions alleging similar claims
related to additional properties were filed (Glen v. Expedia, Inc.
et al; Trinidad v. Expedia, Inc.; Dell Valle, et al. v. Expedia,
Inc., et al.; Echevarria v. Expedia, Inc.; Echevarria, et al. v.
Expedia, Inc., et al.).
Four of the actions are pending in the Southern District of Florida
and one action is pending in U.S. District Court of Delaware.
The Expedia Group entities have filed motions to dismiss in three
of the six actions and decisions are pending.
Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
EXPEDIA GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Kirkpatrick Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion seeking
class certification of the Kirkpatrick lawsuit against HomeAway.com
is pending.
On March 15, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in
federal district court in Texas against HomeAway.com, Inc. related
to its implementation of a service fee.
The putative class was comprised of homeowners that list their
properties on HomeAway's websites for rent. The complaint asserted
claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and
violations of the state consumer protection statutes. Subsequently,
three other putative class action lawsuits were filed making
similar claims.
After a series of motions and appeals, three of the four lawsuits
were dismissed and compelled to individual arbitration; one
(Kirkpatrick) is proceeding as a putative class action in the Texas
federal district court. In the Kirkpatrick case, on May 16, 2018,
the district court dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim
with prejudice. The district court heard argument on plaintiff's
motion for class certification on October 16, 2019, and the parties
await a ruling.
Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Allred Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
14, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
motion seeking dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Blake
E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title
Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain,
Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel Bond, is pending.
Chicago Title Insurance Company is one of the company's title
insurance underwriters.
On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake
E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title
Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain,
Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel Bond, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
The lawsuit claims Gina Champion-Cain and her firms, ANI
Development, LLC and American National Investments, Inc., falsely
represented investors' funds were being used to make high-interest
short-term loans to California liquor license applicants through a
special lending program or platform. Instead, Cain misused the
funds for personal uses and to subsidize her vast array of
businesses.
The scheme unraveled when the Securities and Exchange Commission
sued Cain and ANI last year for violations of securities laws. ANI
was placed into receivership at the SEC's behest and a
court-appointed receiver has taken control of the companies'
assets.
The lawsuits assert violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962, and common law
against the Chicago Title entities, which acted as escrow agent for
ANI.
Plaintiffs seek class certification and consequential, treble, and
punitive damages.
The Named Companies are defending and have filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on several grounds, or alternatively, to stay
the case.
Chicago Title contends the investors' claims are unfounded and the
cases should be dismissed.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24,
2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title
insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.
FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Vehicle Owner's Defective Sunroof Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in Washington
state dismissed a 2013 Ford Escape owner's consumer-protection suit
relating to the spontaneous shattering of her vehicle's panoramic
glass sunroof. The failure rate of the sunroofs is 0.5 % and the
consequences of such a failure are not so severe as to qualify as a
material defect.
A copy of the Order Granting Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment is
available at:
https://is.gd/2fcGsG
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Briefing on Class Certification Bid Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the briefing on the
motion for class certification in the class action suit entitled,
uan Duarte, Betsy Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural
Guardians Juan Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty
Nobles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. United States Metals Refining Company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper &
Gold Inc. and Amax Realty Development, Inc., Docket No. 734-17, has
been completed.
From 1920 until 1986, United States Metals Refining Company (USMR),
an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX),
owned and operated a copper smelter and refinery in the Borough of
Carteret, New Jersey. Since the early 1980s, the site has been the
subject of environmental investigation and remediation, under the
direction and supervision of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP). On-site contamination is in the
later stages of remediation.
In 2012, after receiving a request from NJDEP, USMR also began
investigating and remediating off-site properties, which is
ongoing.
On January 30, 2017, a class action titled Juan Duarte, Betsy
Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural Guardians Juan
Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty Nobles, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United States
Metals Refining Company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and
Amax Realty Development, Inc., Docket No. 734-17, was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey against USMR, FCX, and Amax Realty
Development, Inc.
The defendants removed this litigation to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, where it remains pending. In
December 2017, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and FCX was
dismissed as a defendant and Freeport Minerals Corporation (FMC)
was added as a defendant to the lawsuit. In 2019, the court allowed
the plaintiffs to add FCX back into the case as a defendant.
The suit alleges that USMR generated and disposed of smelter waste
at the site and allegedly released contaminants on-site and
off-site through discharges to surface water and air emissions over
a period of decades and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for economic losses, including diminished property values,
additional soil investigation and remediation and other damages.
In January 2020, the parties completed briefing on the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class, which is expected to take at least
several months for the court to decide.
FCX continues to vigorously defend this matter.
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. engages in the mining of mineral properties
in North America, South America, and Indonesia. The company
primarily explores for copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and other
metals, as well as oil and gas. The company was formerly known as
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and changed its name to
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. in July 2014. Freeport-McMoRan Inc. was
founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.
GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Caramazza Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CARAMAZZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP; SUNRISE
RIVERSIDE, LLC; BRADLEY JOHNSON; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-20-583137 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., Feb. 21, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff Caramazza was employed by the Defendant as non-exempt
employee.
Greystar Management Services, L.P. provides real estate services.
The Company offers property and investment management services such
as senior living, housing solutions, portfolio and risk management
services, and due diligence, as well as renders development and
construction services. Greystar Management Services serves
customers throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Bibiyan, Esq.
Diego Aviles, Esq.
Sara Ehsani-Nia, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
diego@tomorrowlaw.com
sara@tomorrowlaw.com
HEALTHY PAWS PET: Faces Benanav Class Suit in W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthy Paws Pet
Insurance LLC. The case is styled as Steven Benanav, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Healthy Paws Pet
Insurance LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00421 (W.D. Wash., March 19,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Healthy Paws Pet Insurance is a pet insurance company providing
comprehensive health insurance for dogs and cats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A Adams, Esq.
Toby James Marshall, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 816-6603
Fax: (206) 319-5450
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Kanefsky Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by David
Kanefsky.
On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting
for Bendix asbestos claims.
On May 15, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, another
Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action asserting the
same claims relating to substantially the same alleged conduct in
the same jurisdiction.
On December 16, 2019, the court denied Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System's motion to be appointed as substitute lead
plaintiff in the Kanefsky action.
On December 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in the Kanefsky action.
Honeywell said, "We believe the claims related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims have no merit."
Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Named as Defendant in Resideo Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company, together with Resideo Technologies, Inc., is facing a
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Resideo
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation.
On January 7, 2020, The Gabelli Asset Fund and certain related
parties filed a putative class action complaint against Resideo
Technologies, Inc. and Honeywell in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to Resideo's spinoff
from Honeywell in October 2018.
On January 27, 2020, this putative class action was consolidated
with certain previously-filed actions asserting claims relating to
substantially the same matters into a single class action under the
title In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation.
Honeywell said, "We believe the allegations against Honeywell
regarding the Resideo spinoff have no merit."
Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
HP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
STL.News reports that the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP announces that the firm has filed a securities fraud
class action lawsuit against HP Inc. (NYSE: HPQ) ("HP") on behalf
of investors who purchased or acquired HP common stock between
February 23, 2017 and October 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action, captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund,
Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01260, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.
IMPORTANT DEADLINE REMINDER: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired HP common stock during the Class Period may, no later than
April 20, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to
learn how to participate in this litigation please visit
www.ktmc.com/new-cases/hp-inc.
HP is a global provider of personal computers, printers and related
supplies, solutions, and services. HP conducts its business
primarily through two segments: Personal Systems and Printing. HP's
Printing segment includes the Supplies business unit which
comprises consumable products, including ink and laser cartridges,
for recurring use in consumer and commercial printing hardware.
The Supplies business has been a significant revenue driver for
HP.
Prior to the Class Period, on June 21, 2016, HP reported that its
Supplies business was facing numerous challenges. As a result, HP
announced a one-time investment of $450 million to buy back
supplies from its channel partners to better align supplies
inventory levels with demand, with the goal of stabilizing supplies
revenue by the end of fiscal 2017. HP also announced the
fundamental shift in its Supplies business from a push strategy to
a pull strategy, which involves aligning channel supplies inventory
levels with current demand and marketing efforts to drive print
relevancy and strengthen HP's Supplies brand value.
The Class Period commences on February 23, 2017, the next trading
day after HP issued a press release after the close of market on
February 22, 2017, which it also filed with the SEC on a Form 8-K,
announcing its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal
2017.
At the start of the Class Period, HP assured investors that its new
approach of managing and aligning demand and inventory in its
Supplies business would avert the types of problems that
necessitated the $450 million buy-back. The centerpiece of this
new approach was focused on what HP called its "four-box model."
For several years, HP measured its Supplies business through this
model, which focuses on the four key drivers of revenue growth:
in-store base, usage, market share, and price.
HP's four-box model became the primary focus of HP and its
investors because HP assured investors that its use of the four-box
model enabled it to accurately assess demand for products in its
Supplies business and manage the inventory placed in its sales and
distribution channels. Throughout the Class Period, HP emphasized
the four-box model as an accurate, reliable tool to determine
demand and revenue in the Supplies business, and reassured
investors that, based on the four-box model, HP had a "clear line
of sight to supply stabilization." Defendants repeatedly
highlighted the reliability of HP's four-box model and the revenue
growth of the Supplies business, touting their "continued
confidence in the predictive value of the four box model" and
stating that HP's "Supplies revenue is in line with the
expectations that we set, and that our 4-box model continues to
drive predictability."
The truth began to emerge on February 27, 2019, after the close of
trading, when HP reported that total Supplies revenue was down 3%,
with a 9% decline in HP's Europe, the Middle East, and Africa
("EMEA") market, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2019. On an
earnings call held that day, HP management attributed the shortfall
to weaker than predicted demand from commercial customers in EMEA
driven by an increase in online sales, where HP had a lower market
share and faced more competition from cheaper third-party
alternatives than in the U.S. HP, however, admitted to a larger
problem with its four-box model: it had been using incorrect data
concerning inventory, market share, and pricing assumptions. Thus,
contrary to its previous statements, HP in fact had limited
"visibility into the downstream channel ecosystem." As a result,
HP had too much inventory in its Supplies channel network that was
not selling through. HP also revealed that it lacked telemetry
data – data provided automatically by remote units, such as
printers that have been sold to customers, which apprise HP about
the level of usage and need for new toner – to determine reliable
market share assumptions for its Supplies business. Following this
news, HP's stock price declined from $23.85 per share to $19.73 per
share, or over 17%, on high trading volume.
Then, on August 22, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced in
a press release, also filed on a Form 8-K with the SEC, that Dion
J. Weisler ("Weisler"), HP's President and Chief Executive Officer,
would step down at the end of October 2019. HP also announced
disappointing earnings results for the third quarter of fiscal year
2019, with Supplies revenue down 7% year-over-year. Management
also revised Supplies revenue guidance even further down, to 4% or
5% down for fiscal year 2019 from previous guidance of 3%.
Following this news, the price of HP's stock dropped nearly 6%,
from $18.93 per share to $17.81 per share, on unusually high
trading volume.
Finally, on October 3, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced
that it was "departing from the purely transactional
Supplies-centric business model" and transitioning to a
hardware-driven business. The new business model gives customers
the choice between a discounted HP printer that can only function
with HP Supplies or a higher-priced HP printer with the option to
choose third-party cartridges. Under the new business model, HP
would abandon its use of the four-box model as HP de-emphasized
Supplies revenue and instead would focus on "the key metrics [of]
service growth and operating profit dollars, which better reflect[]
the system profitability." HP also announced mass layoffs as part
of a major company restructuring, in which it expects to cut
between 7,000 to 9,000 positions, or up to 16% of its global
workforce, over three years. Following this news, the price of
HP's stock dropped from $18.40 per share to $16.64 per share, or
nearly 10%, on unusually high trading volume.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants knew that the four-box model 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 also alleges that the
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 HP's
channel exceeded demand by at least $100 million and HP's Supplies
revenue growth was grossly inflated.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com.
HP investors may, no later than April 20, 2020, move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if they so choose. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and
that the class member will adequately represent the class. An
investor's ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. Communicating with any counsel is not necessary to
participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead
plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an inactive class member.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). [GN]
ICNAUF INSULATION: Brancaccio Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BRANCACCIO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. ICNAUF INSULATION, INC.,
an unknown business entity; KNAUF INSULATION USA, an unknown
business entity; KNAUF INSULATION, GMBH, an unknown business
entity; KNAUF INSULATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV07267 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.
The Defendants hired the Plaintiff and the other aggrieved
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked,
missed meal periods or rest breaks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees worked over eight
hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment
with the Defendants.
Knauf Insulation is an international company owned by the Knauf
family and is a manufacturer of insulation products in the U.S. and
Europe.[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
IDEANOMICS INC: Miranda Suit in New York Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jose Pinto Claro
Da Fonseca Miranda v. Ideanomics, Inc.
On July 19, 2019, a purported class action, captioned Jose Pinto
Claro Da Fonseca Miranda v. Ideanomics, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers.
Ideanomics said, "While the Company believes that the Class Action
is without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself against
these claims, there can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail in the lawsuits. The Company cannot currently estimate the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, that it may experience in
connection with these litigations."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ideanomics, Inc. operates as a financial technology and asset
digitization services company. The Company was formerly known as
Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc. Ideanomics, Inc. was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in New York, New York.
JUUL LABS: Pinellas School District Mulls Joining Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Reeves at Tampa Bay Times reports that Pinellas County is
poised to become the fourth school district in Florida to join a
growing federal class action lawsuit against Juul Labs Inc., a top
manufacturer of electronic cigarette devices called vapes that have
found their way into classrooms across the country.
The suit alleges that Juul used dishonorable marketing tactics to
target teens as customers, like offering fruity flavors and hiring
social media influencers to vouch for the product. An attorney
representing the plaintiffs recently told Pinellas school officials
the company "set out to make smoking great again" while downplaying
the health risks of vapes.
Nearly 100 school districts nationwide have joined the lawsuit,
including those in Florida's Palm Beach, Brevard and Seminole
counties. Officials in Pinellas still must formally vote to join,
but all expressed support at a recent School Board workshop, where
they discussed what many have described as an "epidemic" in local
schools.
Rene Flowers, like other Pinellas School Board members, blames
Juul's marketing strategy, which has seen growing criticism for
focusing on teens.
"When you put flavors in something to make it taste like
strawberries or piña colada … when you use social media
influencers affirming that the product is safe and cool, you're
going to have kids looking at that," she said. "In order for (Juul)
to keep their business going, they've got to have a market for it.
And that market, unfortunately, has been our students." [GN]
KILGORE ISD: Judge Hears Arguments in Tax Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Strough, writing for Longview News-Journal, reports that new
developments in the long-running Axberg vs. Kilgore ISD lawsuit
have come to light as plaintiffs filed an amended petition turning
the case into a class-action lawsuit seeking monetary damages to
recoup taxes they say were improperly collected and, on the same
day, a judge dealt a blow to the district by ruling against it in
its bid to end the suit.
According to Gregg County court records, the plaintiffs filed an
amended motion on Feb. 11 to expand the scope of the original
lawsuit. The amendments include adding plaintiffs and defendants to
the petition and seeking monetary damages to cover the cost of
taxes they allege were collected improperly.
In dispute are homestead exemptions from the 2015 tax year that
Kilgore ISD trustees removed in June that year, only to have Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton issue a nonbinding opinion that fall
saying districts that had taken away the optional 20% homestead
exemption were in violation of a newly passed school reform law.
The lawsuit originally was filed in September 2016 on behalf of
Gregg County plaintiffs Darlene Axberg, John Axberg and Sheila
Anderson. The amended suit adds plaintiffs Patrick R. Gatons, Dale
Hedrick, Laura Hedrick, Brenda Mills, John Mills, James Nicks, Judy
Nicks, Philip Eugene Patterson and Karen Wilson.
Original defendants named in the suit were Kilgore ISD, board
trustees Reggie Henson, Trey Hattaway, Scott Montgomery, Karl
Riley, John Slagle, Dereck Borders and Jimmy Kinsey, Superintendent
Cara Cooke and Gregg County Tax-Assessor Collector Kirk Shields.
However, a ruling in February 2017 dismissed Shields from the suit,
and in January 2018, the seven trustees and Cooke were dismissed.
Cooke has since resigned as superintendent.
Defendants in the amended suit are Kilgore ISD and trustees Henson,
Borders, Hattaway, Alan Clark, Lloyd Vanderwater, Joe Parker and
Dana Sneed.
Three of the trustees, Clark, Vanderwater and Sneed, were not on
the board when the original suit was filed. Parker was newly
elected in spring 2016.
In another development, a document dated Feb. 11 shows that Gregg
County Court at Law No. 2 Judge Vincent Dulweber denied a summary
judgment the district had sought to end the case.
The two sides had presented their cases to Dulweber at a Jan. 27
hearing.
Kilgore ISD attorney Dennis Eichelbaum argued the district's local
option homestead exemption, which was established in the 1980s,
should have been exempt from Senate Bill 1 and Senate Joint
Resolution 1, the laws forbidding local option homestead exemption
repeal, because the bills as written only addressed local option
homestead exemptions established in fiscal year 2014.
Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Jonathan Mitchell of Austin
countered no information in the case contradicted the rulings of
higher state courts and there was no confusion over whether the
district fell under the terms used in SB 1 and SJR 1.
Dulweber said he would take seven to 10 days to review the
arguments before returning his decision.
In his ruling denying Kilgore ISD's motion for a summary judgment,
Dulweber stated "the court cannot find, as a matter of law, that SB
1 did not apply to defendant (Kilgore ISD) for the reason that
defendant did not take any action to adopt a local optional
homestead exemption for the 2014 tax year, and therefore,
defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment under Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure 166a© is hereby denied."
The ruling also denied the district's argument claiming there was
no evidence showing the district illegally rescinded its local
option homestead exemption.
With the judgment, Kilgore ISD might have to repay more than $4
million in taxes gathered after the local option homestead
exemption's repeal. The district has been keeping those funds in an
untouched bank account awaiting the decision of the court.
The amended lawsuit claims the district's 2015 repeal of its
long-standing local option homestead exemption was done in
violation of new state laws and that Kilgore ISD acted "ultra
vires," or beyond its legal capacity, in carrying out the repeal.
"In violation of Section 1-b(e), Article VIII, of the Texas
Constitution and Section 11.13(n-1) of the Texas Tax Code,
defendants in 2015 repealed the local option homestead exemption
that they had adopted under Section 11.13(n) of the Texas Tax Code
for the 2014 tax year," the lawsuit read.
"They have also illegally assessed and collected taxes that are
subject to this exemption. Plaintiffs, whose residence homesteads
lie within the boundaries of the school district, are entitled to
the same exemption for the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 tax
years. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that defendants' actions
were ultra vires and violate their due process and due course of
law rights under the Texas Constitution. Plaintiffs further request
a permanent injunction mandating that defendants reinstate the
exemption for application in the 2015 through 2019 tax years.
Plaintiffs also seek a refund of illegally collected taxes which
plaintiffs paid to the school district as a result of duress."
The amended petition seeks financial restitution for the
plaintiffs.
"Plaintiffs request that defendants be cited to appear and answer
and that, upon final trial, the court render judgment awarding
plaintiffs and the class the declaratory relief and injunctive and
mandamus relief requested herein along with the requested classwide
refund, plaintiffs' reasonable and necessary attorney's fees, and
all other relief to which plaintiffs and the class may be
entitled," the document reads. [GN]
KRAFT HEINZ: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in Illinois Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that a consolidated
amended complaint has been submitted in the lawsuit pending before
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are currently defendants in three securities class action
lawsuits filed in February, March, and April 2019.
The first filed action, Hedick v. The Kraft Heinz Company, was
filed on February 24, 2019 against the Company and three of its
officers (the "Hedick Action").
The second filed action, Iron Workers District Council
(Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan v. The
Kraft Heinz Company, was filed on March 15, 2019 against, among
others, the Company and six of its current and former officers (the
"Iron Workers Action").
The third filed action, Timber Hill LLC v. The Kraft Heinz Company,
was filed on April 25, 2019 against, among others, the Company and
seven of its current and former officers and directors (the "Timber
Hill Action").
All of these securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Another securities class action lawsuit, Walling v. Kraft Heinz
Company, was filed on February 26, 2019 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against,
among others, the Company and six of its current and former
officers (the "Walling Action"). Plaintiff in the Walling Action
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his complaint, without
prejudice, on April 26, 2019.
On October 8, 2019, the court entered an order consolidating these
lawsuits into one proceeding and appointing lead plaintiffs and
lead plaintiffs' counsel. Lead plaintiffs, Union Asset Management
Holding AG and Sjunde AP-Fonden, filed a consolidated amended
complaint on January 6, 2020, adding 3G Capital, Inc. and several
of its subsidiaries and affiliates (the "3G Entities") as party
defendants.
The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases, investor presentations, earnings calls,
and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, financial
results, and internal controls, and further alleges the 3G Entities
engaged in insider trading and misappropriated the Company's
material, non-public information. The plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and other relief.
The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
KRAFT HEINZ: Continues to Defend Osborne Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Osborne v. Employee
Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz.
The company's Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of
its current and former officers and employees are currently
defendants in one class action lawsuit, Osborne v. Employee
Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, which was filed on
March 19, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current
and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of
various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled
investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust
during the period of May 4, 2017 through February 21, 2019.
An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") based on alleged breaches
of obligations as fiduciaries subject to ERISA by allowing the
Master Trust to continue investing in the company's common stock,
and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties by current and
former officers for their purported failure to monitor Master Trust
fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
L'OREAL: Faces Class Action Over Liquid Makeup Containers
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Saberi, writing for ksnt.com, reports that an Overland Park
Law firm is suing popular cosmetics brand, L'Oreal in a California
class action lawsuit.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs, Renee Young, and Roxanne Tierney
claim the company uses defective pumps on at least four of their
liquid foundation bottles which prevents consumers from accessing
all the product.
In some cases, the lawsuit alleges more than half the product is
going to waste.
"The lid is designed to not be removed. There are people around the
country and world that has reported going to get pliers to try and
open them in ways that are really not safe and really not what
anybody wants consumers to do when they are trying to get makeup
out," Snyder Law Firm attorney, Karen Snyder, who filed the lawsuit
along with her husband, said.
The lawsuit was officially filed, Friday, Feb. 7 in a San Francisco
Federal Court.
It targets four products manufactured and distributed by L'Oreal
and Maybelline: · L'Oreal Visible Lift Serum Absolute Foundation,
Maybelline Superstay Better Skin Skin-Transforming Foundation (also
owned by the company), L'Oreal Age Perfect Eye Renewal Eye Cream
and L'Oreal Revitalift Bright Reveal Brightening Day Moisturizer.
The lawsuit also claims complaints date back at least a decade.
"They know about it, and in fact, they use other types of packaging
with their other products, so it's not if they don't know the other
options available," Attorney Paul Snyder said. "For some reason,
the ones that are at issue in the lawsuit, they just use this
closed pump design, and the consumers who use the products aren't
able to get to a lot of the product, and it's really no good reason
for that to exist."
Attorneys say the goal of the lawsuit is to ask the judge to make
L'Oreal stop packaging these type products and recover damages for
the thousands, or even millions, of consumers.
"It's $12 to $15 that, for a lot of the people, and if the
consumers who are spending this and can only use two-thirds of it,
that's a financial loss to them," Snyder said. "If you look at the
industry, it's a huge industry, so that adds up."
This is not the first time that L'Oreal has faced claims of this
nature. In 2018, customers filed another class action lawsuit over
this issue.
The lawsuit is currently focusing on the state of California.
Attorneys ask anyone who has experienced this issue to contact the
Snyder Law Firm offices at (913) 685-3900. [GN]
LOGMEIN INC: Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc., LogMeIn, Inc.
et al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK, 9:19-cv-81155).
On July 25, 2019, a securities class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, referred to herein as the
'33 Act Claim, was initiated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida against the Company,
Citrix Systems, Inc. and certain officers and directors of both
LogMeIn and Citrix, entitled Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK, 9:19-cv-81155).
The lawsuit, which arises from substantially the same set of facts
as the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Action, was
purportedly filed on behalf of current and former Citrix
stockholders who acquired LogMeIn common stock in connection with
the Company's January 2017 acquisition of the GoTo Business from
Citrix and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged misstatements
or omissions made in the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-4 and the related prospectus as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in December 2016.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees and costs.
The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
LOGMEIN INC: Suits Challenge Francisco Partners-Elliott Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is facing
several class action lawsuits related to a definitive agreement in
which LogMeIn will be acquired in a transaction led by Francisco
Partners, a technology-focused global private equity firm, and
Evergreen Coast Capital Corporation, the private equity affiliate
of Elliott Management Corporation.
In December 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Logan Parent, LLC, or Parent,
and Logan Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, or
Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub would merge with and into LogMeIn, with LogMeIn continuing as
the surviving corporation of the Merger and as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective
time of the Merger, each share of LogMeIn common stock that is
issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of
the Merger (other than shares to be cancelled pursuant to the
Merger Agreement or shares of common stock held by holders who have
made a valid demand for appraisal in accordance with Section 262 of
the Delaware General Corporation Law), shall be automatically
converted into the right to receive $86.05 in cash, without
interest.
On March 12, 2020, LogMeIn said its stockholders voted to adopt the
definitive agreement at a special stockholders' meeting held
earlier that day. LogMeIn stockholders adopted the merger
agreement with more than 74% of the outstanding shares voting in
favor of the deal.
Since the announcement of the Merger, five putative class action
complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of the
company's alleged stockholders, three in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Stein v. LogMeIn,
Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00098), filed January 22, 2020;
Carter v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00124), filed
January 24, 2020; and Thompson v. LogMeIn, Inc., et., (Case No.
1:20-cv-00129), filed January 27, 2020, and two in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Ford v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00582),
filed January 22, 2020; and Rosenfeld v. LogMeIn, Inc. et. Al.,
(Case No. 1:20-cv-00981) filed February 5, 2020 (together, the
"Actions").
The Actions name as defendants, LogMeIn, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its Board of Directors. The Actions allege,
among other things, that all defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act insofar as the proxy statement preliminarily filed by
the company on January 17, 2020 in connection with the Merger
allegedly omits material information with respect to the
transactions contemplated by the therein, including certain
financial projections included therein, that purportedly renders
the preliminary proxy statement false and misleading.
The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescissory damages, declaratory judgment and an award of
plaintiffs' fees and expenses.
LogMeIn said, "We believe the claims asserted in these complaints
are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously."
LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit entitled, Wasson v. LogMeIn,
Inc. et al.
On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was initiated
by purported stockholders of LogMeIn in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company and certain
of its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No.
2:18-cv-07285).
On November 6, 2018, the case was transferred to the District of
Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330). The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 based on alleged misstatements or omissions concerning
renewal rates for our subscription contracts.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees and costs.
LogMeIn said, "We believe the lawsuit lacks merit and intend to
defend it vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces Trado Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Trado, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01472 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' violations of the New York Minimum Wage
Act, and the New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants require their Hourly
Managers to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However, the
Defendants do not compensate their Hourly Managers for all hours
worked; instead, the Defendants require their Hourly Managers to
perform compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled
shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, when they are not
clocked into the Defendants' timekeeping system. These policies
result in Hourly Managers not being paid for all time worked,
including overtime.
The Plaintiff worked the Defendants as a Support Manager.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Phone: (914) 934-9200
Email: seth@klafterolsen.com
fran@klafterolsen.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
MAVERICK CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Torres Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY TORRES, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated v. MAVERICK CONSTRUCTION CORP. and MICHAEL D. MCNALLY,
Case No. 20-0509H (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 24, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages as
required by Massachusetts law.
The Plaintiff and putative class members are current and former
employees of the Defendants, who are routinely paid at two
different hourly rates in weeks they worked overtime. However, the
Plaintiff alleges, when the Defendants calculate the overtime wages
due to these employees, the Defendants do not blend the employees'
different rates of pay. Instead, the Defendants calculate
employees' overtime rate by utilizing the lowest hourly rate of
pay, resulting in a lower overtime premium than is required by law
and the loss of a substantial amount of earned overtime wages, says
the complaint.
On April 9, 2018, Maverick hired Plaintiff Anthony Torres as an
equipment operator. Maverick employed Mr. Torres continually until
it laid him off on February 3, 2020.
Maverick is an infrastructure engineering, procurement, and
construction company operating in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr.
McNally has been the president and treasurer of Maverick
Construction Corp., and resides in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617)433-8509
E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
MGM RESORTS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------
Todd Shriber, writing for Casino.org, reports that John Smallman,
formerly a patron of MGM Resorts International (MGM), is suing the
gaming company after it was revealed that cyber thieves stole the
data of 10.6 million guests last year.
Earlier, MGM verified the data breach involving 10,683,188 records
of prior guests, including celebrities, convention goers and
government officials. The operator of the Bellagio and Mirage,
among other Las Vegas Strip properties, made affected guests aware
of the incident last year. But it came to light publicly after the
information was released on an online hacking forum.
In a complaint filed on Feb. 21 in U.S. District Court in Nevada,
attorneys for Smallman claim that MGM notified impacted guests on
or about Sept. 5 2019 following a breach on or around July 7, 2019,
and that the company kept it quiet to avoid negative publicity in
the wake of the October 1, 2017, mass shooting at Mandalay Bay that
resulted in 58 deaths and more than 800 injuries.
ZDNet initially reported news of the data theft on Feb. 19. PII
references "personally identifiable information."
"Unfortunately, the miscreants that took and/or acquired the
sensitive PII had other plans, and on February19, 2020, internet
technology publication ZDNet revealed that the personally
identifiable information of more than 10.6 million MGM hotel guests
had been posted on a hacking forum, available for misuse by a host
of bad actors," according to the suit."
Suit Details
Smallman's counsel notes the Californian stayed at the Luxor
multiple times over the past 10 years using his drivers license, a
credit or debit card, and other PII while there. He also used
payment cards at the Bellagio. Earlier, Casino.org reached to MGM
to verify what properties were affected by the hack, but did not
hear back from the company.
The hackers stole full names, home addresses, phone numbers,
emails, and dates of birth. But MGM said to ZDnet it believes
payment information and passwords weren't compromised in the cyber
attack.
"Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having their PII stolen as a
result of the Data Breach, including, but not limited to: (a)
paying monies to MGM for its goods and services which they would
not have had if MGM disclosed that it lacked data security
practices adequate to safeguard consumers' PII from theft; (b)
damages to and diminution in the value of their PII—a form of
intangible property that the Plaintiff entrusted to MGM as a
condition of receiving MGM services; (c) loss of their privacy; (d)
imminent and impending injury arising from the increased risk of
fraud and identity theft," according to the complaint.
Smallman's attorneys also argue that due to the MGM data
infiltration, their client will be increasingly vulnerable to
financial fraud and identity theft in the coming years.
Hospitality Targets
Due to the nature of the personal information acquired by gaming
companies and hotel chains, the travel and leisure industry is
among the most vulnerable to cyber thievery. In the last decade,
one of the largest data breaches involved 383 million records
stolen from Marriott's Starwood brand.
Hilton, Hyatt and Trump are among the other big-name hoteliers that
have had run-ins with cyber criminals.
Smallman's attorneys note the MGM data breach may run afoul of
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines. The FTC has previously
brought action against companies for not sufficiently safeguarding
customer data.
"At all relevant times, MGM knew, or reasonably should have known,
of the importance of safeguarding PII and of the foreseeable
consequences if its data security systems were breached, including,
the significant costs that would be imposed on customers as a
result of a breach," according to the suit. [GN]
MONARCH RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA in California, Rai Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Bobby Rai,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., First Financial Investment Fund
III, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00579 (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. operates as a collection agency.
The Company provides debt recovery services such as new placement
review, advanced skip tracing, and arranging promises to pay, as
well as offers speech analytics, online payment portal, full call
recording, and flexible collection systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
MULTIPLE INNOVATIONS: Varnadoe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maryann Varnadoe, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MULTIPLE INNOVATIONS TO RECOVERY, LLC, d/b/a/
7 SUMMIT PATHWAYS, Case No. 8:20-cv-00629 (M.D. Fla., March 19,
2020), seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff alleges that she worked hours in excess of 40 hours
within a work week for the Defendant, and they were entitled to be
paid an overtime premium equal to one and one-half times their
regular hourly rate for all of these hours. Thus, the Defendant
consistently failed to pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium for
all of those hours in excess of forty hours per week that they
worked, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a behavioral health
technician in October 2017 as a 1099 independent contractor.
The Defendant is a foreign corporation with its headquarters
located in Norwalk, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donna V. Smith, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main Number: 813-224-0431
Direct Dial: 813-386-0995
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: dsmith@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NetApp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended January 24, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of its
executive officers.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements
with respect to its financial guidance for fiscal 2020, as provided
on May 22, 2019.
Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date the company
provided revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020.
The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in
the market price of the company's shares following the issuance of
the revised guidance on August 1, 2019.
NetApp said, "We believe the complaint is without merit and intend
to defend the case vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
NetApp, Inc., incorporated on November 1, 2001, provides software,
systems and services to manage and store customer data. The Company
enables enterprises, service providers, governmental organizations,
and partners to envision, deploy and evolve their information
technology (IT) environments. The company is based in Sunnyvale,
California.
PETER NYGARD: Louis Bacon Feud Ensues Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Feitelberg, writing for WWD, reports that hedge fund
billionaire Louis Bacon wasted no time in responding to the searing
front-page article in The New York Times, "Ultra Wealthy Neighbors,
A Feud and a Rape Case." And his rival Peter Nygard also weighed in
on the matter via a spokesman.
The lengthy investigative article chronicled the 15-year litigious
and costly battle between Bacon, 63, and Nygard, 78, founder of the
moderate-priced sportswear label Nygard. The billionaires have
neighboring waterfront properties in the Bahamas' affluent Lyford
Cay. The "epic battle" between the two adversaries has reportedly
led to "tens of millions" and the filing of 25 lawsuits in five
jurisdictions.
Earlier in February, 10 women, whose names have not been revealed,
filed a lawsuit against Nygard alleging rape, sex trafficking and
sexual assault. Some of the victims, including a few who were
minors at the time, alleged they were plied with alcohol, and in
some case pills by Nygard, before being raped or sodomized at
"pamper" parties held at Nygard's Mayan-inspired estate in the
Bahamas. Some of the alleged victims claimed they were enticed by
the prospect of modeling contracts.
Some of the New York attorneys representing those "Jane Does"
claimed that "dozens" of other victims came forward as a result of
that legal action.
The Times article reported that lawyers and investigators funded in
part by Bacon offered Nygard associates such incentives as a year's
rent in a gated community and Cartier jewelry to build an abuse
case against Nygard. Nygard, in turn, allegedly used his wealth to
intimidate critics and to buy allies, according to The Times. He
was said to have had employees sign confidentiality agreements and
allegedly sued those he suspected of talking.
In what appeared to be a preemptive strike, Bacon's team issued a
statement in response to the article: "I admire the women who had
the courage to share their stories with The New York Times. I was
not looking for this fight, but once I heard repeated credible
reports from disgusted whistleblowers that Mr. Nygard was abusing
young, vulnerable women, I could not ignore the disturbing
information. I sought to help and empower them with appropriate law
enforcement authorities. That is where this matter belongs."
A spokesman for Nygard Issued the following statement on his
behalf. "Peter Nygard has fought off allegations of sexual
misconduct levied against him over the past decade by opportunistic
women intending to feed off a billionaire benefactor, Louis Bacon,
and capitalize on the #MeToo movement to intimidate and extort Mr.
Nygard into also paying them."
"The New York Times, after investigating Mr. Nygard for more than
one year, has apparently arrived at the same conclusion -- that
women were tampered with, coerced and paid to assert false
allegations against Mr. Nygard, with Louis Bacon paying them
millions of dollars, buying them expensive luxury jewelry and even
securing homes in gated communities at the cost of $5,000 per month
in exchange for assisting in his conspiracy."
While The New York Times stopped short of reporting the lawsuits
filed against Mr. Nygard to be fraudulent, the reporters apparently
found sufficient evidence to challenge the unfounded claims made by
the accusers and confirm and enhance the allegations in Mr.
Nygard's RICO lawsuit against Louis Bacon, including payoffs to
women to lie and payments of millions of dollars to a pair of
Bahamian criminal thugs in a failed effort to ensnare Mr. Nygard in
a murder for hire plot. In addition, at least two women have
recanted, admitting they were paid to make up false stories about
Mr. Nygard when neither of them had ever even met him.
The statement continued, "Mr. Nygard looks forward to exposing all
of the decade-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy through his RICO
claim against Louis Bacon (scheduled for Feb. 26) and to clearing
his name through his requested dismissal of the class action
(scheduled March 5th). Nygard is also planning his pursuit of
damages against those who have falsely accused him of the alleged
acts, and those, including the media, who had participated along
with Louis Bacon in the scheme that has now been exposed but has
already damaged Nygard and his business.
RICO, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, provides
for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for
acts performed as part of an ongoing enterprise, focusing on the
leaders of an organization who committed acts, assisted in actions
or ordered others to take action." [GN]
PG&E CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
motions seeking dismissal of the third amended complaint in the
class action suit entitled, In re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation, is pending.
In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.
The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.
The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.
Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated
both cases and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation.
The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018.
After the plaintiff requested leave to amend their complaint to add
allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.
Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility) filed a notice
on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings are
automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code.
On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to
the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.
On February 22, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County
Action").
The complaint names as defendants certain current and former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public
offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor
the Utility is named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the note offerings related to, among other things,
PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and
wildfire safety measures.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
attorneys' fees and other costs, and injunctive relief.
On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re
PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.
On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously-filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters.
The action remains stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility.
On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation's
and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the claims against
the officer, director, and underwriter defendants.
On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint,
which motions are currently under submission with the District
Court.
PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.
PG&E CORP: Bid to Dismiss PSPS Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, strike the class action
allegations in the class action suits involving Public Safety Power
Shutoff (PSPS) is pending.
On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility).
The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all
California residents and business owners who had their power shut
off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26,
October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent
voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation.
The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and
November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility's
negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and
surrounding vegetation.
The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general
damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to
require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power
grid.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the
class action allegations. The motion to dismiss and strike is set
to be heard by the Bankruptcy Court on March 10, 2020.
PG&E said, "At this stage of the litigation, PG&E Corporation and
the Utility are unable to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate
a range of reasonably possible losses."
PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.
PG&E CORP: Parties in Vataj Propose Case Schedule
-------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
parties in Vataj v. Johnson et al. have submitted a proposed case
schedule.
On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al.
The complaint names as defendants a current director and certain
current and former officers of PG&E Corporation. Neither PG&E
Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges materially false and misleading statements
regarding PG&E Corporation's wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility's public
safety power shutoffs, that allegedly resulted in losses and
damages to holders of PG&E Corporation's securities.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under, the Exchange Act of 1934, and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other
costs.
On February 3, 2020, the District Court granted a stipulation
appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, Ironworkers Locals
40,361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Robert Allustiarti co-lead
plaintiffs and approving the selection of the plaintiffs' counsel,
and further ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule by
February 13, 2020.
On February 11, 2020, the parties submitted a proposed case
schedule.
PG&E said, "Given the early stages of the litigations, including
but not limited to the fact that defendants' motions to dismiss
have not yet been heard and no discovery has occurred in the
consolidated class action litigation, and that the de-energization
class action was recently filed, PG&E Corporation and the Utility
are unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss."
PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.
POLARIS INC: Guzman and Albright Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Paul Guzman and Jeremy
Albright v. Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris
Sales Inc.
A putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and alleges violations
of various California consumer protection laws, including in
connection with ROPS (rollover protection systems) certifications,
for various Polaris products sold in California: Paul Guzman and
Jeremy Albright v. Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and
Polaris Sales Inc., August 8, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.
POLARIS INC: Johannessohn et. al. Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Riley Johannessohn, Daniel
Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James
Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Polaris Industries.
A putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges excessive heat
hazards on certain other Polaris products and seeks damages for
alleged economic loss: Riley Johannessohn, Daniel Badilla, James
Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James Pinion, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris
Industries (D. Minn.), October 4, 2016.
Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.
POLARIS INC: Sales Practices and Product Liability Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a putative class action
is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota and arises out of allegations that certain Polaris
products suffer from unresolved fire hazards allegedly resulting in
economic loss, and is the result of the consolidation of the three
putative class actions the company reported in its April 26, 2018
quarterly report and that were filed between April 5-10, 2018. The
consolidated case is entitled, In re Polaris Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15,
2018.
Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.
PORTLAND GENERAL: Dismissal of Claims in Trojan Class Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
14, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a class
action plaintiff failed to advance a motion for reconsideration of
an Oregon appeals court's opinion affirming the lower court's
dismissal of all of the plaintiff's claims in the Trojan Investment
Recovery related suit.
In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC).
In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the
Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining
investment in Trojan.
Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.
In 2003, in two separate proceedings, lawsuits were filed against
PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers: i)
Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and
ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County
Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260
million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in
prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in
Trojan.
In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering
the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded
that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any,
remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions
or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that
the Company collected in prices.
In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2010.
Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of
Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.
In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit
Court lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and
heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.
In 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted
the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims
by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit
Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon.
In November 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that
affirmed the Circuit Court dismissal. On December 30, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of
Appeals denied on February 4, 2020.
PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision, the decisions of the
Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals that followed have reduced
the risk of any loss to the Company beyond the amounts previously
recorded and refunds discussed above. However, because the class
actions remain subject to a potential petition for review to the
OSC, management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a
loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.
Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.
POSIQ INC: Tiger Files Suit in Northern District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Posiq, Inc. The case
is styled as Matthew Tiger, Casey Fitzgerald, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Posiq, Inc., Case No.
5:20-mc-80064-NC (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions.
Posiq, Inc. develops software solutions. The Company offers
software for restaurant sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 524-2820
Fax: (954) 524-2822
Email: seth@epllc.com
PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the
Cane Run Environmental Claims class action suit are taking an
appeal from a court ruling to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and common law
claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence.
In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and
all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common
law tort claims. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court
dismissed PPL as a defendant and dismissed the final federal claim
against LG&E, and in April 2017, issued an Order declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims
dismissing the case in its entirety.
In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.
On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January
14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky
Court of Appeals.
PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an
estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.
PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
PPL CORP: Bid to Nix Talen Montana Retirement Plan Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is seeking
dismissal of a class action suit entitled, Talen Montana Retirement
Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL Corporation et al.
On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.
The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen
Putative Class Action).
The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment.
They are seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer,
unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of
a constructive trust, and other relief.
In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division (MT Federal Court).
In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. In
September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case back to state court, and the PPL defendants
promptly petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant an
appeal of the remand decision.
On November 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
that request and on December 30, 2019, Talen Montana Retirement
Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Sixteenth Judicial
District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, which removed
Talen Energy Marketing, LLC as a plaintiff.
On January 31, 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.
PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
PRESS BOX: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Fernandez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. PRESS BOX, INC., a California
corporation; PRESS BOX 3, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00666 (Cal. Super., Fresno
Cty., Fresno Cty.), alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime and meal and rest
period premiums.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and other persons as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the state of
California.
Press Box Inc was founded in 1989. The Company's line of business
includes the leasing of properties, such as airport, and
offices.[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
- and -
Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
Heather Davis, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
136 Main Street, Suite A
El Segundo, CA , 90245
Telephone: (424) 290-3095
Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
RED ROBIN: Delsalvo Sues in C.D. California Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Robin
International, Inc. The case is styled as Brett Delsalvo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red
Robin International, Inc. doing business as: Red Robin Burger and
Spirits Emporiums a Delaware corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02629-GW-JPR (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Red Robin International, Inc. operates as a restaurant. The Company
offers food products such as gourmet burgers, chicken sandwiches,
salads, entrees, turkey burgers, fish sandwiches, bottomless steak
fries, and beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
RESCARE INC: Removes Diaz Suit to Northern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SUSANA DIAZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESCARE,
INC.; RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco (Case No.
CGC-20-582235) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on February 21, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01333.
The case is assigned Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
Rescare, Inc. a California corporation providing employment
services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Phil J. Montoya, Jr., Esq.
HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
445 Soutli Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1651
Telephone: (213) 486-8000
Facsimile: (213) 486-8080
E-mail: pmontoyalaw.com
RETIREMENT CONCEPTS: Class Suit Includes Summerland Seniors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Thom, writing for Global News Canada, reports that lawyers
behind a proposed class-action lawsuit against Retirement Concepts
and other named defendants based on allegations of neglect,
mistreatment and abuse of seniors say it will include residents and
family members of Summerland Seniors Village in its class
proceedings.
The Interior Health Authority (IHA) earlier announced it was
temporarily appointing an administrator to take over the day-to-day
operations of the privately owned long-term care facility in the
South Okanagan because it wasn't meeting the legislated standard of
care.
Summerland Seniors Village is the fourth Retirement Concepts
facility in B.C. to be placed under government management in the
past six months.
Outside administrators have been appointed to run the company's
other care homes in Nanaimo, Comox and Victoria.
B.C. health authorities are now running 31 per cent of the
company's publicly funded beds in B.C., according to Health
Minister Adrian Dix
It's the largest chain of for-profit care homes in the province.
Lawyers are preparing a class-action lawsuit against Retirement
Concepts and Cedar Tree Investment Canada Inc., which is a
subsidiary of the former Beijing-based Anbang Insurance Group.
Anbang purchased Retirement Concepts in 2017. The proposed class
action also names PR Seniors Housing Management, now known as West
Coast Seniors Housing Management, which operates the care
facilities owned by Retirement Concepts, as well as the B.C.
government.
The lead plaintiffs are Erin Huebner and Krista Kilvery of
Victoria, B.C., whose mother, Blondine Huebner, resided at Waverly
Seniors Village in Chilliwack in 2017.
"This class action concerns systemic neglect, mistreatment and
abuse of senior citizens who live in retirement facilities operated
by the defendants," says the notice of civil claim. [GN]
ROCKSTAR GAMES: Faces Class Action Over "Hot Coffee" Rating
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Goetting, writing for Hot Hardware, reports that Take-Two
Interactive is definitely not a fan of "Hot Coffee", and no, we are
not talking about your favorite Starbucks order. Take-Two recently
demanded that a Red Dead Redemption 2 mod with sexual themes be
removed. The Red Dead Redemption 2 mod "Hot Coffee" allows players
to have physical intercourse with women in the game. The game
already includes some nudity and brief sexual content, however,
players themselves are not permitted to engage in it.
This Red Dead Redemption 2 mod is inspired by the minigame "Hot
Coffee" from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Carl "CJ" Johnson, the
main character in GTA: San Andreas, takes one of his girlfriends
out on a date. The girlfriend then invites CJ into her home for
"coffee". The minigame was disabled, but it was added as a mod for
PC versions of the game in June 2005. Other gamers quickly found
ways to play the minigame on their consoles.
The original "Hot Coffee" mod led to quite a bit of outrage. A
grandmother who purchased the game for her teenage grandson claimed
that the original "M" rating was misleading. She consequently filed
a class action lawsuit. Politicians and protesters demanded greater
scrutiny and enforcement of the ESRB ratings system. The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) was even asked to investigate Rockstar Games
to determine whether they had purposely lied about their rating.
The rating of GTA: San Andreas was changed from Mature (M) to
Adults Only (AO) and the game was removed from many retailers.
Rockstar eventually released a patch that completely removed the
minigame. They were able to reclaim their Mature rating once the
patch was released and settled a variety of lawsuits.
It is therefore little wonder that Take-Two Interactive and
Rockstar are leery of this fan-made Red Dead Redemption 2 mod. The
modders were reportedly told by legal representatives that they had
violated the game's end-user license agreement (EULA). The modders
had violated the EULA by "decompiling, preparing derivative works
based on, or otherwise modifying the software" and "creating,
uploading, or posting material that is vulgar, obscene, sexually
oriented . . ." The legal representatives requested that the mod be
taken down.
One modder named "Unlosing" has spoken about the controversy. They
believe that Take-Two and Rockstar are behaving unfairly. They
noted that the mod does not include nudity and only "only uses
assets that are still in the game" like the moans that characters
emit when they are injured. Furthermore, the mod is only for
single-players. Unlosing added, "I find it crazy how Rockstar Games
can add hookers to its games, but when someone uploads a mod (not
even of the same quality) it's suddenly 'inappropriate'".
This is not the first time Take Two has put a stopper on fan-made
projects. The company recently filed a lawsuit against developer
Jonathon Wyckoff. Wyckoff was working on a project that would
enhance the graphics of Red Dead Redemption and make it playable on
PC. The original game could only be played on PC through services
like Playstation Now. Wyckoff has since canceled the project. [GN]
ROSE ACRE: Averts Egg Products Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Lin Rice, writing for Columbus CEO, reports that Porter Wright
Columbus attorneys prevailed in a rare jury trial.
Antitrust court cases don't usually make it in front of a jury --
in most instances, the parties settle out of court. However, a
recent win by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur marks the second
favorable jury decision for one of the firm's clients in the past
two years.
In a case brought before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, a group of 12 supermarkets alleged that
Indiana-based Rose Acre Farms (Porter Wright's client), United Egg
Producers, United States Egg Marketers and other egg producers
conspired to reduce the supply of eggs on the market, resulting in
increased prices for the buyers. Plaintiffs sought about $1 billion
in damages. Following a six-week trial, a jury found for the
defendants on Dec. 12.
"The firm's very happy for our client -- you don't see this kind of
case tried very often," says Porter Wright partner and trial team
member Jim King. "We had a really good group of people working
together on this case with a great breadth of knowledge in the
antitrust world."
The verdict is the second jury win for Rose Acre. A jury also found
in favor of the company in 2018. King says the plaintiffs in this
recent decision were some of the grocery store chains (including
Kroger and Giant Eagle) that didn't join the previous class-action
case. The case itself has been argued in court off and on since
2008, when the class action lawsuit against 13 egg producers was
initially filed.
As part of the initial class action, the group of buyers claimed
Rose Acre and others conspired together by creating an animal
welfare program ostensibly to create better living situations for
their chickens. But plaintiffs claimed the egg producers actually
just wanted to increase prices.
King says buyers had required their producers to sell only eggs
produced in compliance with animal welfare standards. After groups
like PETA targeted the fast food industry in the 1990s and early
2000s, they turned their attention to supermarket chains. As a
result, the larger chains decided to get in front of the issue and
designated standards for animal welfare, King says. Producers
adhering to the standards could package their products with a
certification logo.
"Our client felt like they had no choice," King says. "(Their)
largest customers indicated that 'You need to get involved with the
program' if you want to sell them eggs."
About the case
Case: In Re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation
Case number: 2:08-md-02002
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs: Large grocery chains including Kroger and Giant Eagle
Defendant: Rose Acre Farms
Claim: Egg producers conspired to raise prices by enacting common
animal welfare standards.
Jury finding: Plaintiffs failed to prove conspiracy.
Trial team leads: Porter Wright attorneys Jim King, Don Barnes and
Jay Levine
As the case has continued over the years, most of the other
defendants have settled, King says. Jim Wilson, a partner with
Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease whose practice focuses on antitrust
litigation, says the balance of risk and reward is a main factor in
most antitrust cases settling out of court.
"There's a lot of incentive on both sides to settle these kinds of
cases, particularly if they get past summary judgment," Wilson
says. "Frankly, the class of plaintiffs will often settle for a
reasonably small amount, and the defendant doesn't want to risk the
potential for huge damages."
The plaintiffs in the egg producers case planned to seek about $1
billion in damages, which can be tripled in antitrust cases. The
2018 class action case also sought about $1 billion in damages.
Wilson says there has been an increase in antitrust litigation in
the past 15 years. "That's for a couple of reasons, but especially
in price-fixing cases, the Department of Justice has been very
aggressive in investigating that kind of conduct," he says. "There
have been a lot in the agricultural sector, in eggs, poultry,
potatoes, mushrooms, in many cases where defendants thought they
were being lawful and want to defend what they did. No one wants to
admit they violated the antitrust statutes."
While antitrust statutes and contract disparities might seem overly
complicated at times, Porter Wright partner and trial team member
Jay Levine says cutting through the jargon to make a clear argument
is a favorite aspect of the job.
"As with all complex trials, especially antitrust trials, trying
the case was intellectually stimulating," Levine says. "Personally,
I enjoy trying to take very complex ideas and facts and summarize
them for a lay jury in a way that will resonate with them."
The rulings in both cases involving Rose Acre Farms have been
appealed, King says—the initial class action will be argued
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Third Circuit sometime in the
spring. An appeal for the most recent ruling will be argued
probably around the end of this year or early 2021. King says he
would expect a decision before the end of the year on the class
action case, and that Porter Wright will continue to represent Rose
Acre Farms.
Levine says the outcome could quite possibly have an impact on
future antitrust or agricultural cases.
"Most antitrust defendants assume that a jury's natural inclination
will be to believe that something happened and therefore shy away
from going to trial," Levine says. "This case shows that whether or
not that assumption is correct, antitrust defendants can
demonstrate that 'nothing happened.' And agricultural producers can
take heart that their activities with their cooperatives will not
necessarily expose them to antitrust liability.
"So, while every case and every defendant is different, this could
help tip the scales when an antitrust defendant is considering
between settling and going to trial." [GN]
SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless Individuals' Bid for Temporary TRO Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in California
denied a group of homeless individuals' request for a temporary
restraining order to require the city of Sacramento to allow for
the placement of a portable toilet at a downtown homeless camp.
A copy of the Order is available at:
https://is.gd/xB081x
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Rosenauer Zantac Suit Moved From Mo. to Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TIM ROSENAUER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S.
LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES INC., and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 6:19cv03406BP (Filed Nov. 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on Feb. 31, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. Case
9:20-cv-80253-RLR to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose
material information that Zantac exposed users to unsafe levels of
the carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine, according to scientific
evidence.
The Defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent concealment under
Missouri law, violates implied warranties, and runs afoul of
Missouri's consumer-protection laws, including the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, the Plaintiff alleges.
Zantac--the brand-name version of the generic drug ranitidine--is
used to treat gastrointestinal conditions, such as acid
indigestion, heartburn, sour stomach, and gastroesophageal reflux
disease. As recently as 2018, Zantac was widely used and remained
one of the most popular acid-reducers in the United States, with
sales of over $100 million annually.
According to the complaint, Zantac's prodigious sales were possible
only because of a deception perpetrated by the drug's manufacturers
on consumers, who have purchased Zantac since it hit the market in
1983. The producers of Zantac, including the Sanofi Defendants,
never disclosed to consumers that the drug has a critical defect:
when ingested, Zantac produces in the human body high quantities of
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a potent carcinogen.
The Plaintiff previously purchased the over-the-counter version of
Zantac. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of those persons,
who purchased over-the-counter Zantac in the State of Missouri
during the applicable statute of limitations period, including
periods of tolling.
Had the Defendants disclosed that Zantac results in unsafe levels
of NDMA in the human body, the Plaintiff, like any other reasonable
person, would not have purchased and consumed Zantac, the lawsuit
says.
Sanofi is a French multinational pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Paris, France. Boehringer Ingelheim is one of the
world's 20 leading pharmaceutical companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd C. Werts, Esq.
Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
LEAR WERTS LLP
2003 West Broadway, Suite 107
Columbia, MO 65203
Telephone: 573 875-1991
Facsimile: 573-875-1985
E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
werts@learwerts.com
SANTEE COOPER: $520MM Settlement Proposed in Nuclear Project Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery G. Wilks and Andrew Brown, writing for The Post and Courier,
report that Santee Cooper has reached a tentative legal settlement
that could secure cash refunds for customers of the state-run
utility and hold off a potential sale of the power provider, The
Post and Courier has learned.
A proposed $520 million settlement -- reached early on Feb. 20
after two days of marathon negotiations -- would reimburse the
ratepayers of Santee Cooper and South Carolina's 20 electric
cooperatives for the money they poured into the failed V.C. Summer
nuclear project in Fairfield County.
And, in return, Santee Cooper could be freed from the class-action
ratepayer lawsuit that threatens to bankrupt the 86-year-old power
and water utility.
The potential settlement could boost Santee Cooper's prospects in
the South Carolina Legislature, where the future of the state-run
utility hangs in the balance. Santee Cooper finds itself on the
state's auction block because it wasted $4 billion on the nuclear
reactors before canceling the project in July 2017.
State lawmakers are currently debating whether to keep Santee
Cooper under state ownership, sell it to Florida-based NextEra
Energy or hire another company to manage its operations for the
state.
NextEra, one of the largest power companies in the country, has
already reached its own, $541 million proposed settlement with
attorneys representing Santee Cooper customers. Until now, NextEra
could boast about its unique ability to resolve the lawsuit that
threatens Santee Cooper's viability.
"We thought that was a very risky piece of litigation," James Robo,
NextEra's CEO, told state lawmakers during a hearing on Feb. 19.
"And we are the only plan that settles that litigation as part of
our proposal. So we think that is very important."
That calculus changed, according to multiple sources who confirmed
details of the preliminary agreement to The Post and Courier. They
said they could not speak publicly because the judge presiding over
the case, former S.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, has
instructed attorneys to not discuss the negotiations.
Dominion declined to comment, citing that instruction. So did
Gibson Solomons III, the ratepayer attorney designated to handle
media questions.
Soon after The Post and Courier's initial report, Santee Cooper
confirmed it has reached a tentative agreement to settle the
lawsuit. But spokeswoman Mollie Gore would not discuss the terms of
the agreement, saying they are confidential.
The proposal would include up to $520 million to refund Santee
Cooper's customers most of what they have already been charged for
the V.C. Summer project -- minus any legal fees associated with the
case, sources said.
It also requires Santee Cooper to lower its rates and freeze them
for the next several years, sources said.
But Santee Cooper won't be the only one paying for the settlement.
Virginia-based Dominion Energy would contribute $320 million of the
total $520 million under the proposed settlement, sources said.
Dominion is the new owner of S.C. Electric & Gas, which was Santee
Cooper's partner on the failed V.C. Summer project. Dominion was
also a defendant in the ongoing ratepayer lawsuit. Settling the
lawsuit eliminates a large legal liability for the company and
allows it to move past V.C. Summer. [GN]
SANTEE COOPER: NextEra's Bid At Issue Amid Proposed Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Post and Courier reports that if you're keeping a tally of the
pluses and minuses in competing proposals for the future of South
Carolina's state-owned utility, you might have lower rates and
continued state ownership of a valuable asset on the plus side for
Santee Cooper, and on the minus side, only limited state regulation
and no contingency plan if it can't finalize a proposed settlement
of a class-action lawsuit that could leave it unable to pay down up
to $3.6 billion in nuclear debt.
NextEra laid out demands in its offer to buy Santee Cooper, but one
part of the deal troubles lawmakers still haunted by the V.C.
Summer nuclear plant failure that cost customers billions.
For NextEra, the plus side would include $541 million in rebates
for rates that customers have already paid for the failed V.C.
Summer nuclear construction project and so far the only certain
settlement of the lawsuit. On the minus side that started with
massive layoffs, no profit for our state from the sale and no
guarantee that its higher rates wouldn't go even higher, we can now
add a demand for pre-approval of $2.3 billion worth of new
construction.
If that sounds eerily familiar, it's because you remember the
now-infamous Base Load Review Act. That all but guaranteed SCE&G
could keep raising our power bills to pay for and pull down a hefty
profit from the construction of two nuclear reactors - even as the
costs skyrocketed and the project fell further and further behind
schedule before being abandoned. (That's how most of us learned
that the main way investor-owned utilities make money is through
the guaranteed profit they collect on construction projects.)
The Legislature repealed the BLRA but allowed Dominion Energy to
keep charging customers for $2.3 billion worth of the construction
costs after it purchased SCE&G parent SCANA Corp.
Sponsored
At first glance, Florida-based NextEra's mammoth offer for Santee
Cooper includes a whopping $1.1 billion in cash "for the benefit of
the state." But upon closer inspection, the deal shows that money
could be swallowed up by long-term liabilities NextEra plans to
leave with the state as it privatizes the 86-year-old electric and
water utility.
The Base Load Review Act didn't apply to Santee Cooper because it
isn't regulated, but the utility's participation as SCE&G's junior
partner in the project left it with $4 billion in debt and led to
calls for its sale.
Now, as The Post and Courier's Andrew Brown and Avery Wilks report,
one of the conditions of NextEra's bid to purchase Santee Cooper is
a law that bypasses the Public Service Commission and pre-approves
four years of spending to construct solar generation and a natural
gas power station, upgrade an existing plant and purchase battery
power. The law also would allow the company to keep charging
customers if it abandoned those projects because of changes in
federal law.
And we wouldn't be surprised if more potential pitfalls aren't
uncovered as reporters dig through the extremely complex NextEra
proposal.
To its credit, NextEra isn't asking for the same sort of blank
check that SCE&G had. A utility spokesman says the legislation
(which most lawyers haven't seen yet) would put "hard cost caps" on
the spending, and in any event it would only grant prior approval
to beginning the construction, not to cost overruns.
We've already seen enough problems with the NextEra bid to purchase
Santee Cooper that the SC Legislature might not even be considering
it if not for a lawsuit that threatens to plunge the state-owned
utility into bankruptcy.
And although we're used to investor-owned utilities having to get
approval from the PSC to embark on new construction, the fact is
that the only current restraint on Santee Cooper's construction
spending is in a private contract that allows the electric
cooperatives to refuse to help pay for any new building plans. That
effectively serves as a check because the co-ops are Santee
Cooper's biggest customer by far. (The utility's reform plan
subjects its large new construction plans to state regulation.)
For anyone who's looking out for the best interests of ratepayers
and the state of South Carolina, it's still too early to say
whether it's better to sell Santee Cooper to NextEra or to retain
state control of the utility.
The pre-approval demand isn't necessarily a deal killer for the
NextEra proposal. But it is a major drawback, which should count
heavily against the benefits of the proposal. As South Carolinians
learned the hard way, allowing monopoly utilities to bypass normal
oversight provisions is a recipe for disaster. [GN]
SASOL LTD: Robbins LLP Notes of Securities Class Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
purchaser of Sasol Limited (NYSE: SSL) filed a class action
complaint against the Company for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between March 10, 2015 and January
13, 2020. Sasol operates as an integrated chemical and energy
company in South Africa.
Sasol Limited (SSL) Accused of Misleading Shareholders
According to the complaint, in October 2014, Sasol announced the
construction of an $8.1 billion ethane cracker and derivatives
complex named the Lake Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP"). However,
Sasol failed to conduct sufficient due diligence on the project,
and therefore provided shareholders an inaccurate cost estimate in
its announcement. This became evident on May 22, 2019, when Sasol
increased the LCCP's cost estimate to a range of $12.6 to $12.9
billion, citing corrections on several aspects of the project. Then
in October 2019, Sasol disclosed that a review of the LCCP brought
to light "errors, omissions, and inaccuracies in the [LCCP] cost
estimate" as well as a number of unethical and improper reporting
activities at the highest level of management. Consequently, Sasol
announced the resignation of its Joint Presidents, Chief Executive
Officers, and others previously in charge of the LCCP. Finally, on
January 14, 2020, Sasol announced the Company "experienced an
explosion and fire at its LCCP low-density polyethylene unit." On
this news, Sasol's shares fell almost 8% to close at $19.99 per
share on January 15, 2020. The stock has since continued to
decline.
Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and
has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for
themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Click
here to receive free alerts from Stock Watch when companies engage
in wrongdoing.
Contact:
Leo Kandinov
Robbins LLP
E-mail: lkandinov@robbinsllp.com
Tel: (619) 525-3990
Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
Web site: http://www.robbinsllp.com/
[GN]
SCHMITT SOUTH: American Family Files Insurance Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schmitt South Eola,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as American Family Mutual Insurance
Company, S.I. v. Schmitt South Eola, LLC d/b/a McDonald's;
Schmitt-Orchard, LLC a/k/a Schmitt McDonald's LLC; Reinaldo
Saucedo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Case No. 1:20-cv-01872 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated insurance contract.
Schmitt South Eola LLC is a legal entity doing business as
McDonald's.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Marc Chemers, Esq.
PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHTD.
One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606-4673
Phone: (312) 346-1973
Email: rchemers@pretzel-stouffer.com
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Fuller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHALILAH FULLER, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. SHISEIDO AMERICAS CORPORATION
d/b/a BARE ESCENTUALS BEAUTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00389-TLN-AC (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services it provides to non-disabled
customers through its Web site.
According to the complaint, the Company's denial of full and equal
access to its Web site, https://www.bareminerals.com/ and,
therefore, denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. By
failing to make the Web site accessible to blind persons, the
Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both
state and federal law.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Shiseido Americas is a global beauty company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: lit@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
SIXT RENT A CAR: Siglin Suit Transferred to S.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Parker Siglin, individually and on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Sixt
Rent A Car, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
was transferred from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego with the assigned Case No. 37-02020-00012844-CU-BT-CTL to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego) on March 17, 2020, and assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00503-DMS-BLM.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
SIXT Rent a Car, LLC provides car dealing services. The Company
retails new and used cars, financing, maintenance, and repairing
services, as well as parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
Law Offices of Kira M. Rubel
3615 Harborview Drive, Suite C
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
Tel: (800) 836-6531
Fax: (206) 238-1694
Email: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com
SPOTIFY: Ex-Employee Files Misclassification Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Ashcraft, writing for Law Street Media, reports that Matthew
Elias was employed by Spotify for approximately two years. He
alleges that approximately one year into the employment he was
reclassified as an independent contractor without changing his
role, title, or compensation. He claims that Spotify "intentionally
misclassified him and other employees," as independent contractors
and, as a result of this, "failed to pay them all wages owed."
Elias brought his complaints about Spotify to them in a class
action lawsuit. Spotify was served with the Summons and Complaint
on February 1. Spotify filed a Notice of Removal on February 26 to
move the case from the California Supreme Court to the Northern
District of California. Spotify is represented by Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe.
"These off-the-clock waiting periods exist for the sole benefit of
Defendants and occurred frequently and regularly at Defendants'
locations in California. This illegal practice has been in effect
by Defendants for years, but Defendants continue to require their
nonexempt employees to endure these off-the-clock working periods,"
the complaint reads.
In addition to the alleged failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
because of this reclassification, the complaint also cites failure
to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses,
failure to pay all wages owed after separation, and failure to
abide by California's Unfair Competition Law.
The class action case includes any current or former employees who
worked in the time period beginning four years before the filing of
the complaint, nonexempt employees and those who worked as
independent contractors. "The size of the Classes makes a class
action both necessary and efficient. On information and belief, the
proposed Classes include hundreds of current and former employees,
misclassified or not, at Defendants' locations in California," the
complaint states. The Defendant's Notice of Removal said this
includes approximately 187 employees. [GN]
STATE FARM: Wildfire Victims File Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
attorneys for State Farm customers whose homes were wiped out by
the Northern California wildfires fought in federal court on Feb.
13 to keep alive a class action claiming State Farm issued
insurance policies that intentionally undervalued their houses, and
then lowballed the cost to rebuild.
Lead plaintiffs Brian and Alison Sheahan of Santa Rosa says State
Farm used an unreliable valuation tool called 360 Value, provided
by Insurance Services Offices Inc. and Verisk Analytics, that
estimates the value of a homeowner's insurance policy based on ZIP
code without taking into account the homes' architecture, design
elements, building materials, building code requirements and other
factors.
The Sheahans and other property owners in Santa Rosa claim State
Farm intentionally underinsured their homes so it could attract
more customers and sell more policies at cheaper rates.
Their complaint characterizes the alleged scheme as a "one-two
punch." After a loss, State Farm uses another tool, Xactimate by
Xactware Solutions and Verisk, which often estimated construction
costs 50% below the actual market rate for rebuilding in Northern
California.
For the Sheahans, 360 Value estimated their property at $509,000
and Xactimate estimated the cost of rebuilding at $804,000, far
below the actual rebuild cost of $2.2 million.
According to the lawsuit, in many instances homeowners never saw
the information entered into the 360 Value software, they were
never interviewed and no one visited their house.
"Because State Farm's undervaluation started so low with the
initial 360 Value pricing, following a catastrophe such as the
Northern California Wildfires, thousands of policyholders are
systematically financially ruined," the lawsuit says.
Attorney Julia Donoho and her co-counsel Rebecca McWilliams, who
represent the fire victims, told U.S. District Judge Edward Chen
that State Farm misrepresented the 360 Value tool as a reliable way
of determining insurance policy values.
But Chen, who has already dismissed the case twice, asked them how
they could skirt a disclaimer State Farm offers saying it doesn't
guarantee accuracy in its estimates.
Donoho said state law requires insurance companies to base policies
on an estimate and since the construction industry standard for
estimates is within 10% of the actual rebuild cost, State Farm must
have known its Xactimate values were inaccurate.
Chen didn't appear to buy the industry standard argument, since
insurance adjusters are not required to be licensed contractors.
But he asked State Farm's attorney Frank Falzetta whether
theoretically there could be a point where a disclaimer fails, "if
the insurance company knew systematically that an undervaluation
was going on."
Falzetta said he was not prepared to concede that point.
"There's nothing in the law or insurance code that says any
estimate has to be in a certain range of accuracy," he said.
While the plaintiffs also argued State Farm was required by
California insurance code to notify them of extended replacement
coverage following a disaster, Falzetta said State Farm owed them
no such duty under Fitzpatrick v. Hayes, a 1997 case where the
state court ruled insurance companies have no obligation to notify
customers about the availability of extra liability coverage.
"Is there any circumstance where you can envision an insurance
company or agent as responsible who misrepresents coverage or an
omission?" Chen asked.
"No, you don't owe any special duties of disclosure or anything
else," Falzetta said.
Chen said that one of the main problems he's had with the case is
the plaintiffs' inability to articulate an antitrust injury,
something he's still been unable to discern from their third
amended complaint.
"Injury here may be due to misrepresentation, deliberate unfair
practices, but antitrust injury is generally about some
anti-competitive conduct that causes injury to the consuming
public. I don't see what's different here," he said.
Chen took the case under submission.
Outside the courtroom, Donoho said many of her State Farm-insured
clients have come to her office "in tears" because they realize
they'll never be able to rebuild.
Donoho and McWilliams said they hope Chen gives them a chance to
amend their complaint a fourth time to show the extent of what they
believe is a long-running collusive conspiracy between State Farm
and Verisk.
SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE: Edwards Hits Missed Breaks, Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary J. Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SumiRiko Tennessee, Inc, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00083 (E.D. Tenn., February 27, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, as well as interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs,
and disbursements for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
SumiRiko is in the business of manufacturing rubber parts for the
automotive industry where Edwards was employed as an hourly-paid
production employee. She claims to have worked through her
30-minute meal period without being paid overtime. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
SUNSET MESA: Class Action Over Body Broker Business Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Shrull, writing for The Daily Sentinel, reports that Londa
Sessoms is lost and still searching for answers.
Gaping crevasses of depression crack open daily. As hard as she
tries, she can't put the torment out of her mind.
Her voice cracks and fades as she talks about this nightmare that
has plagued her for the past two years and three months.
That's when she was informed that her dad's body was chopped up at
Sunset Mesa, a Montrose funeral home, and parts were shipped around
the country as part of a body broker business to be used for
research and education.
"I was in shock, I can't even describe it," Londa said. "I still
don't know what to do."
Her voice is strong at times, but when the memory hits hard her
emotions unravel. There's also bits of joy in her voice when she
talks about her parents and a love affair that lasted nearly seven
decades.
Lloyd Norlin died on Nov. 23, 2017, at 87 years old, and the family
reached out to Sunset Mesa to handle the funeral and cremation.
Two weeks later, the FBI called.
Anger, confusion, frustration and depression have followed ever
since. Devastation doesn't seem to be strong enough of a
description.
Londa, a Rifle native who now lives in Grand Junction, is part of a
class action lawsuit against the now-closed Sunset Mesa Funeral
Directors and its former owner Megan Hess.
But it's justice, not vengeance or money, that fuels her quest for
answers. A better form of justice for future victims, and a harsher
punishment for those who break the law - that's what she's after.
"I don't care if I get a dime or not, I just want her to be
responsible. She's never taken responsibility for what she did,"
Londa said about Hess.
"I'm not a vengeful person, if she would just take responsibility,
that's what I want. I don't understand it. I never will."
A couple of weeks ago, Londa decided to be part of the solution.
She steadied her nerves, then stepped up, closed her eyes, took a
deep breath and told her story before the Colorado House of
Representatives.
After only two sentences, her emotions spun loose like a yanked
thread on an old sweater and the tears started. But she finished
her powerful testimony, telling the story of a beloved father and a
funeral home they trusted to do the right thing.
A funeral home has a singular job -- to take care of people during
a horrible time in their lives. Trust should be the obvious part of
the job.
Instead, Sunset Mesa dismembered parts of Lloyd Norlin for
financial gain, illegally jumping into the body broker game.
"It doesn't seem like I'll ever get over it until I get my dad
back," she said.
Yes, she knows that getting her dad back is highly unlikely, but
still she tries.
She was on the phone with the FBI's victim advocate. It was a slice
of news but really just more torment.
They determined that some of Lloyd's body parts were shipped to a
medical training lab, but it has locations all around the country.
The House bill introduced by Delta legislator Matt Soper would make
it a felony for anyone found guilty of tampering with a deceased
human body, punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $100,000
fine. The House gave preliminary approval to the bill on Feb. 21.
Soper sent Londa a Facebook message thanking her for her
testimony:
"Members of the majority told me they were really stunned by what
they heard and want to work with me over the summer on regs for
body brokers, funeral homes, and to rein in this area of law. You
made an impact."
Londa finds great satisfaction in that message and her decision to
testify. But it will not turn the tide of emotions and frustration
of what happened with her dad.
Londa has heard the grumblings from friends to "just get over it
already!"
"I just can't. I've tried, I feel like I'm drowning, I'm lost," she
said, her emotions again spinning out of control. "I want to leave
here, go somewhere else, but I can't leave until I figure things
out here."
She talks about the urn that should have contained her dad's ashes
feeling too heavy.
Instead of ashes of loved ones, some victims' urns were filled with
concrete.
Knowing that the urn doesn't contain her father's ashes is what
torments Londa the most.
The walls of Londa's home have so many photos of her parents, yet
she wonders why she doesn't just take them down.
"I still can't even look at pictures of my dad," she said. "It's
just too painful."
Her voice cracks and she takes in a deep breath.
Lloyd and Frances Norlin celebrated 66 years of marriage the day
after Christmas 2015.
Londa was the caregiver for her parents in the final years of their
lives.
Telling her mom about what happened to Lloyd was never an option.
"I tried to shield her. My mom had dementia at the end of her life
and she didn't understand," Londa said.
The proposed legislation will help Londa get some closure. She
likes the idea that future victims will find justice more swiftly
than she has.
"I feel like I owe it to my mom and dad, I want to do something to
put a stop to this, to make sure it never happens again," she
said.
The sanctity and trust of the funeral process was broken by Sunset
Mesa. Loved ones want and need to pay their respects, to honor
those loved ones, so they can move on.
That's Londa's nightmare. That's why she hasn't been able to move
on.
"I don't want them to be forgotten, she said. "When I took the
ashes, I wanted to take him home and honor him."
She then took a moment to regain her composure: "I couldn't do that
because it wasn't my dad. My dad didn't deserve this. I haven't
been able to fully grieve my dad because of all of this."
Londa Sessoms will continue her mission with the hope that this
nightmare will someday be over and behind her.
When and if that happens will be the day she can move on.
For now, that day is no where in sight. [GN]
SVM MANAGEMENT: Case Decision Provides Framework for Employers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth Shaw LLP wrote in JD Supra that the Illinois Supreme Court
recently affirmed a state appellate court's holding that in class
action lawsuits, an effective tender made before a named plaintiff
files a class certification motion satisfies the named plaintiff's
individual claim and moots the plaintiff's interest in the
litigation.
For employers facing workplace class actions in Illinois and other
states with similar statutes involving tenders of complete relief,
this opinion provides an excellent framework for how to moot and
defeat a class action lawsuit prior to class certification
briefing.
In Joiner v. SVM Management, LLC, 2020 IL 124671 (Ill. Feb. 21,
2020), the plaintiffs rented an apartment in a large residential
apartment complex from the defendant. Although the defendant
returned the plaintiffs' full security deposit, the defendant did
not pay security interest on that deposit at any time. Thereafter,
the plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint in the Circuit Court
of Cook County. In Count I, they alleged on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated that the defendant violated the
Illinois Deposit Act by failing to pay interest on its tenants'
security deposits. In Count II, they alleged on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated that the defendant
violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by way
of various allegedly unlawful lease and rider provisions. Finally,
in Count III, they alleged, individually, that the defendant
violated the Illinois Rental Property Utility Service Act by
failing to provide required notices and disclosures.
Although the plaintiffs brought Count I as a class action, they did
not file a motion for class certification. The defendant responded
to the pleadings by tendering the plaintiffs' requested damages and
attorney fees on Count I, and later moving to dismiss the other two
causes of action. The plaintiffs refused that tender, and the
defendant later argued that its tender mooted Count I pursuant to
the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Barber v. American
Airlines, Inc., 241 Ill. 2d 450 (2011), which held that if a tender
is made to the named plaintiff before the filing of a motion for
class certification, the claims are moot because the interests of
the other class members are not before the trial court. The
Circuit Court ultimately dismissed Count I with prejudice.
Before the Illinois Appellate Court, the plaintiffs argued that
Barber was no longer good law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016),
which held that a case becomes moot only when it is impossible for
a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing
party. As such, the plaintiffs argued that if Barber was still
good law, then the Circuit Court erred in holding that Barber
permitted dismissal of all counts when the defendant only tendered
on one count. After noting that Barber was still good law in
Illinois, the Appellate Court held that the defendant made a
sufficient tender and therefore the Circuit Court properly
dismissed Count I as moot. The plaintiffs then appealed this issue
(among others) to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Illinois Supreme Court's Decision
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's dismissal
of Count I based on the tender. Regarding the application of the
Barber rule, the Supreme Court explained that it, "has long held
that, when a defendant tenders the full amount requested by a
plaintiff purporting to represent a class before the named
plaintiff files a class-certification motion, the plaintiff's claim
becomes moot." Id. at 7 (citation omitted).
In its analysis, the Supreme Court examined federal court precedent
from the Seventh Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court relative mooting
class actions. After summarizing the federal case law, the Supreme
Court explained that as a threshold matter, federal Rule 68 offers
of judgment were distinguishable from "tenders." The Illinois Code
of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant must "tender what he
or she shall conceive sufficient amends for the injury done or to
pay the unliquidated damages or demands" to shift costs to the
plaintiff. 735 ILCS 5/5-126 (2016) (emphasis added). Under the
federal rule, conversely, a defendant only needs to "offer to allow
judgment" and can do so, "on specified terms." Fed. R. Civ. P.
68(a). Further, the Supreme Court noted that the federal rule
expressly contemplates a plaintiff's choice to accept or decline
such an offer, while the Illinois rule does not. Id. at *13.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument
that the Campbell-Ewald holding was not limited to Rule 68, and
held that when a defendant admits liability and provides the
plaintiff with all relief requested — as one does with a tender
— no controversy exists, and the trial court must dismiss the
case if no other plaintiff steps into the named plaintiff's shoes
to represent the class. Id. at *15-16.
Applying this analysis to the case at hand, the Supreme Court noted
that the defendant's attorney brought the tender check with him to
the oral argument and in no way intimated that the defendant
intended to keep the check or not pay the plaintiffs' reasonable
attorney fees. The Supreme Court opined that future tenders made
to satisfy a demand, if made after filing of suit, should be made
to the trial court, and if the tender fully satisfies the
plaintiff's demand absent costs and attorneys' fees, the trial
court could then hold a hearing on costs and attorneys' fees before
dismissing the case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the
Appellate Court's dismissal, and held that the defendant must pay
the tendered funds to the Circuit Court pending a hearing on costs
and attorney fees and dismissal. Id. at 19.
Implications For Employers
Although this case is outside the employment law context, the
opinion in Joiner provides valuable strategic insight for employers
who find themselves embroiled in bet-the-company workplace class
actions. Particular to litigants in Illinois state courts, the
opinion can be used as an instruction manual for how to tender
complete relief to a named plaintiff and moot class actions where
the named plaintiff has not yet moved for class certification. The
Illinois Supreme Court's analysis additionally provides an
excellent framework to distinguish the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Campbell-Ewald and similar federal appellate court
rulings, since those cases dealt with offers of judgment under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are merely "offers" of
settlement, as opposed to an actual tender that completely
satisfies a plaintiff's demand. [GN]
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Gericke Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Gericke, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TRUIST, doing business as: BRANCH
BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. GLOL00011220,
was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on March 19, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03053-RMB-AMD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Truist Financial Corp. is an American bank holding company
headquartered in Charlotte.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
26 Newton Avenue
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Phone: (856) 845-1968
Email: lewisadler@verizon.net
The Defendants are represented by:
David G. Murphy, Esq.
Diane A. Bettino, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
506 Carnegie Center
136 Main Street, Suite 250
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (213) 457-8216
Fax: (213) 457-8080
Email: dmurphy@reedsmith.com
dbettino@reedsmith.com
UNIFIN INC: Aber Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Nuchem Aber, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Unifin Inc., Pinnacle Credit
Services, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-01474 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Unifin, Inc., is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable
Management firm licensed and bonded nationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic St.
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED STATES: Judge Prohibits CBP From Holding Detainees
---------------------------------------------------------
Miranda Cyr, writing for Santa Fe New Mexican, reports that Inside
Casa del Migrante, the piercing screams of an 8-year-old boy echo
from a room.
Other children, curious and uncertain, look on as Jordan Ramirez
battles two nurses trying to vaccinate him against influenza,
chicken pox and measles.
Jordan's family arrived in San Luis Rio Colorado 15 days earlier
from their home in the Mexican state of Chiapas, intent on seeking
asylum in the United States. Despite her son's obvious terror,
Maribel Lopez was grateful for the care for him and his two
siblings.
She and her husband couldn't afford health care for their kids in
Chiapas.
"We don't have enough money to give our children well-being and a
better life," she said.
Her children were among 120 people receiving free vaccinations late
in January at Casa del Migrante, a shelter across the border from
Arizona that temporarily houses immigrants waiting to head to the
U.S.
American doctors, members of Congress and immigrant advocates have
been pushing U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to
vaccinate migrants to prevent illness and death. Their calls come
after several migrant children, including some diagnosed with the
flu, have died while in U.S. custody.
With CBP so far rejecting those requests, some organizations are
working to get migrants the health care they need - on the Mexican
side of the border.
One Hundred Angels, a Phoenix organization that provides medical
care and other services to migrants, helped coordinate the one-day
vaccination clinic at Casa del Migrante, working with the Mexican
Red Cross.
One Hundred Angels founder Cecilia Garcia made the seven-hour
round-trip drive with two volunteers, a nurse and a doctor in a van
packed with snacks and supplies to donate. After she saw that
efforts to vaccinate migrants in U.S. facilities were being
blocked, she decided to go a different route.
"We went around; we went to the other side of the border," she
said. "Once they're in detention, and they really can't protect
themselves, they are so vulnerable."
Since September 2018, at least seven migrant children have died
while in U.S. custody or shortly after their release. They ranged
in age from 19 months to 16 years. At least three died in part to
the flu, according to medical investigations and a letter from 13
U.S. senators to the Department of Homeland Security, which
includes CBP.
Felipe Gomez Alonzo, 8, was one of the victims.
The Guatemalan boy was in CBP custody in New Mexico when he was
taken to a hospital Dec. 24, 2018, complaining of a sore throat and
other symptoms. According to a report by New Mexico's medical
investigator, he was prescribed ibuprofen and released back to
agents.
That same night, after his father asked that Felipe be taken to the
hospital again, the boy complained of abdominal pain, vomited blood
and became unresponsive. He died of complications from influenza
B.
Shortly after Felipe's death, teams of experts from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention visited border facilities in Yuma,
Ariz., and El Paso, and the agency provided written recommendations
about how best to control flu and other viruses in CBP facilities.
Those included a recommendation that flu vaccinations be given "at
the earliest feasible point of entry" to anyone 6 months or older.
Nevertheless, CBP officials have declined to provide vaccinations
to migrants in their facilities. In an emailed statement, the
agency said administering vaccines is not a CBP practice.
The agency notes its facilities are meant to hold migrants for up
to three days before transfer to longer-term housing under
Immigration and Customs Enforcement or, in the case of
unaccompanied minors, U.S. Health and Human Services -- agencies
that are able to provide vaccinations and other medical care.
Despite that 72-hour window, government reports and lawsuits reveal
that migrants have been kept in CBP holding facilities for as long
as a month, increasing the potential for disease to spread.
On Feb. 19, a federal judge in Tucson determined that CBP
facilities in southeastern Arizona violate the Constitution because
the conditions are "presumptively punitive." In fiscal year 2019,
12,030 individuals were kept longer than the 72-hour limit in that
border sector.
Noting that the migrants held in those facilities are civil
detainees and not convicted criminals, Judge David Bury said
conditions "are substantially worse than conditions afforded
criminal detainees at the Santa Cruz County jail or other jail
facilities, where detainees are medically screened by medical
professionals; have a bed with cloth sheets, blankets, and pillows
. . . have clean clothing . . . showers, toothbrushes and
toothpaste, and warm meals."
His ruling, which comes in a class-action lawsuit brought by
detainees, prohibits CBP from holding processed detainees longer
than 48 hours, unless the agency "provides conditions of
confinement that meet basic human needs."
In testimony in January before a House subcommittee on border
operations, Brian Hastings, chief of law enforcement operations for
CBP, said the agency has expanded its medical support program,
adding hundreds of contracted medical professionals who work 24/7.
"DHS and CBP remain committed to ensuring that individuals in CBP
custody receive appropriate care, including medical support," he
said.
In the U.S., several organizations are advocating for better health
care for those in custody.
Doctors for Camp Closure, a group of health care professionals who
oppose detention of immigrants, has tried - unsuccessfully - to
offer free vaccinations for detainees.
The group's co-founder, Dr. Marie DeLuca, said her organization
sent a letter to DHS in December but got no response. Group members
then waited outside the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station in
California for two days, hoping that their licensed medical
providers would be able to vaccinate those inside.
However, they were denied access, and six of their members were
arrested for peaceful protest, including DeLuca and three other
doctors.
"We've heard that Border Patrol feels that as a law enforcement
agency, it isn't their . . . responsibility to provide things like
vaccinations," DeLuca said. "But the reality is that they're
creating these problems by placing people in detention.
"We know that if we don't advocate for those changes, people will
die. But ultimately, what we're really advocating for is a system
for people seeking asylum and for people coming into the United
States that respects human rights and dignity."
The number of those seeking entry into the United States has
increased substantially in recent years, and more families are
being apprehended.
In fiscal year 2017, 310,531 immigrants were apprehended by CBP,
and 216,370 immigrants who were seeking lawful admission into the
U.S. were deemed inadmissible. In fiscal year 2019, those numbers
rose to 859,501 and 288,523, respectively.
The rise has led to overcrowded conditions in facilities on both
sides of the border and greater health care challenges.
Martin Salgado, founder of Casa del Migrante, said traffic through
his shelter in San Luis Río Colorado has increased fivefold amid
changes to U.S. immigration policy under President Donald Trump. In
January 2019, for example, the administration implemented the
so-called Remain in Mexico policy, sending asylum-seekers back to
Mexico while they await processing.
Casa del Migrante started in 1992, when a recently deported
immigrant had the idea to open a dining hall for hungry migrants.
Salgado and his mother helped make that dream a reality.
Where it once only offered breakfast, the shelter can now house up
to 85 people at a time, and migrants stay from three to 14 days.
One closet-size room holds four sets of bunk beds. More dormitories
filled with bunk beds line the back wall of a courtyard that serves
as the main social area. There, toys are scattered on concrete and
lines of laundry dry in the sun.
"It grew little by little," Salgado said.
On a recent weekday, the One Hundred Angels team and the Mexican
Red Cross worked in the main entry room, setting up folding tables
and chairs to perform checkups and administer shots.
Dr. Georgina Aguilar Portillo, who traveled with the Phoenix group,
said immigrants like those at the shelter are especially
susceptible to illness.
"They're not eating enough, so they become sick faster, and also
they're all in the same small room," she said, adding that close
contact eases person-to-person transmission of diseases.
Lopez and her husband were vaccinated along with their children.
She hopes to find a home in the United States, where she's been
told that it is clean and beautiful. She dreams of her children
getting a good education in America, and growing up healthy.
As for the care she received at Casa del Migrante, Lopez said: "I'm
so grateful."
Garcia said One Hundred Angels plans to continue to collaborate
with the Mexican Red Cross to provide more vaccines to shelters in
the future. The group recently used donations to buy 16 flu shots,
which they quickly distributed at a clinic in Mexico.
"We're finding them before they go to detention, where we know
exactly what's going to happen," Garcia said. "The least we can do
is support them in this aspect. . . . We're saving people's lives."
[GN]
VOLKSWAGEN: Agrees to Resume Talks to Settle Emissions Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Thomasson and Illona Wissenbach, writing for Reuters, report
that Volkswagen and the German consumer protection organisation
have agreed to resume talks aimed at reaching a deal in a class
action lawsuit over the carmaker's rigging of diesel emissions
tests.
VW admitted using illegal software to cheat U.S. diesel engine
tests in 2015, a scandal which has cost it more than $30 billion in
vehicle refits, fines and provisions.
Nearly all U.S. owners of affected cars agreed to take part in a
$25 billion settlement in 2016 in the United States, but VW has
said there was no legal basis for consumers in Germany to seek
compensation due to differences in law.
A court in the town of Brunswick, which has urged Volkswagen to
settle the lawsuit, said on Feb. 20 the parties to the case had
agreed on the advice of the court to resume discussions to try to
reach a settlement.
State-financed consumer protection organisation Vzbv said it had
accepted the court invitation and said talks should take place
soon. A Volkswagen spokesman confirmed the new talks, but declined
to comment further.
Vzbv said it had not changed its demand that any settlement must be
fair, transparent and verifiable.
Vzbv has said it aimed to show that owners of VW, Audi, Skoda and
Seat cars with so-called type EA 189 diesel engines have been
intentionally harmed by VW's use of software that was used to cheat
emissions tests.
The German class action was made possible after the cabinet
approved a draft law in 2018 allowing consumer protection
organisations to litigate on behalf of consumers, avoiding the high
legal costs that might put people off legal action.
When the diesel scandal broke, 2.4 million cars with defeat devices
were on German roads. In the meantime, most have received a
software update. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Settles Consumer Abuses Investigations for $3 Billion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Texarkana Gazette reports that Wells Fargo & Co. will pay $3
billion to settle U.S. investigations into more than a decade of
widespread consumer abuses under a deal that lets the
scandal-ridden bank avoid criminal charges.
Wells Fargo & Co. will pay $3 billion to settle U.S. investigations
into more than a decade of widespread consumer abuses under a deal
that lets the scandal-ridden bank avoid criminal charges.
The deferred-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice
spares the company a potential conviction that can create serious
complications for banks, if it cooperates with continuing probes
and abides by other conditions for three years. The accord also
resolves a complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investigators found Wells Fargo's overly aggressive sales targets
led thousands of employees to open millions of bogus accounts for
customers and foist other products on them from 2002 to 2016, often
by creating false records or misappropriating their identities, the
Justice Department said on Feb. 21. That generated millions of
dollars in fees and interest and in some cases damaged customers'
credit ratings.
"Our settlement with Wells Fargo, and the $3 billion criminal
monetary penalty imposed on the bank, go far beyond 'the cost of
doing business,'" U.S. Attorney Andrew Murray for the Western
District of North Carolina said in a statement. "They are
appropriate given the staggering size, scope and duration of Wells
Fargo's illicit conduct."
The settlement is the bank's largest yet from a series of scandals
that claimed two chief executive officers. But for shareholders
it's in line with the more-than $3 billion the bank set aside for
legal matters in the latter half of 2019 as negotiations
progressed. It marks another step in efforts by CEO Charlie Scharf,
who took over in October, to turn around the San Francisco-based
lender as he conducts a review of all operations.
The shares climbed about 1% in extended trading after the accord
was announced.
"The conduct at the core of today's settlements -- and the past
culture that gave rise to it -- are reprehensible and wholly
inconsistent with the values on which Wells Fargo was built,"
Scharf said in a statement on Feb. 21, outlining steps the bank has
taken to reform over the past three years.
Still, it's hardly the end of the legal woes. The firm remains
under a growth cap imposed by the Federal Reserve. The Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency announced civil charges in January
against eight former senior executives, some of whom settled.
Probes into allegations at other businesses are continuing.
And on Feb. 21, House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman
Maxine Waters announced she plans to have Scharf and Wells Fargo
Chair Elizabeth Duke testify during a trio of hearings on the bank
in February. Waters called the latest penalty disappointing, saying
it "barely dents" the company's profits from the period and is
dwarfed by tax breaks the firm has since received under President
Donald Trump's administration.
"Despite the settlement, these hearings and the committee's
investigation will make clear that the problems at Wells Fargo
remain unresolved," the California Democrat said.
Scandals in Wells Fargo's consumer operations erupted in 2016 with
the revelation that employees may have opened millions of fake
accounts to meet sales goals. The company's expenses surged as new
details emerged and as additional lapses and wrongdoing surfaced
across business lines including mortgages and auto lending.
The company's stock has suffered ever since, closing on Feb. 21
just below the level it was at when the problems emerged more than
three years ago.
While the sales abuses have been described repeatedly in earlier
probes, the Feb. 21 settlement provides yet more details on the
high-pressure environment that led legions of low-level employees
to break the law -- often costing them their jobs when they were
caught by the firm's internal controls. Many inside the bank
referred to abusive sales practices as "gaming," according to
prosecutors.
That often included misappropriating customers' identities to open
checking and savings accounts, issue debit or credit cards, or
enroll people in bill-pay or remittance services, prosecutors said.
Employees sometimes forged client signatures, created PIN numbers
to activate cards and moved money to simulate account funding. Some
staff even altered contact information to prevent customers of
learning about their unauthorized accounts or receiving
satisfaction surveys.
Senior managers were aware of the issues as early as 2002, with one
internal investigator describing it as a "growing plague" two years
later, and another remarking that it was "spiraling out of
control," investigators found. Yet senior leaders in the community
banking division refused to alter their sales model or ratchet down
unrealistic targets. They later minimized the problems to
higher-ups and the board, blaming them on rogue employees,
prosecutors said.
The deal includes a $500 million payment to the SEC, which granted
the bank a waiver to continue private placements of securities to
accredited investors such as hedge funds. The settlement doesn't
resolve any criminal or civil liability for individuals, according
to a senior Justice Department official.
"This resolution is with respect to the bank only," U.S. Attorney
Nick Hanna told journalists in Los Angeles. "The investigation is
ongoing."
The Justice Department said it considered Wells Fargo's cooperation
and prior settlements when deferring prosecution. The bank
previously paid more than $1 billion to federal regulators for
consumer mistreatment, $575 million to 50 states and the District
of Columbia and $480 million for an investor class-action lawsuit.
[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***